Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Einstein's useless creation and its internal contradictions.

  1. #1 Einstein's useless creation and its internal contradictions. 
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    As for the Einstein's "theory" of relativity, it isn't even a theory but a useless creation based on internal contradictions which should be removed from science in its entirety.
    Ok Omnibus, feel free to justify your rediculous assertion.

    This should be fun...

    *Goes to buy some popcorn*



    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Sox,
    You seem to be very bright. I just hope, that you can back up your end of the equation.


    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I'm not usually this combatitive (is that the word??), but Relativity, both special (SR) and General (GR), is without doubt THE most elegant, and straightforward of what you might call the "advanced" theories in physics.

    QED is the most accurate theory in science. And I mean science, not just physics. The number of decimal places to which measurement and theory agree is astonishing. QED depends on the results of SR. So to say SR is useless is rubbish.

    Likewise for GR, perihelion of mercury? Hulse-Taylor Pulsar??

    As for internal contradictions I don't know where he gets that from either. I can't think of any contradictions in the theory, and presumeably neither can any other physicist who uses SR/GR.

    Relativity is consistent with both classical electrodynamics and in the correct limit, newtonian gravity. Not many theories have such scope. The very fact that some people refer to the theory in inverted commas shows they just dont understand what they're talking about.

    Now, as I feel myself turning into a young Dr Rocket, I think it's best I went for my dinner! :P

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Sox,
    You seem to be very bright. I just hope, that you can back up your end of the equation.
    The statement made by omnibus s sufficiently idiotic that one can be confident that sox can more than back up his end. So can a lot of others.

    Relativity is one of the most solidly verified theories in physics with a mountain of experimental evidence nacking up an equally large body of predictions. Any assertion to the contrary is simply a demonstration of monumental ignorance and/or abject stupidity.

    For starts, try reading just about any physics text. The Feynman Lectures on Physics would be a good beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Sox,
    You seem to be very bright. I just hope, that you can back up your end of the equation.


    For starts, try reading just about any physics text. The Feynman Lectures on Physics would be a good beginning.
    OK Dude.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Sox,
    You seem to be very bright. I just hope, that you can back up your end of the equation.


    For starts, try reading just about any physics text. The Feynman Lectures on Physics would be a good beginning.
    OK Dude.
    Dude ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Sorry if I throw a spanner in the works, but somewhere the Reletivity Theory must be flawed, since it's not fuseable with Quantum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Sorry if I throw a spanner in the works, but somewhere the Reletivity Theory must be flawed, since it's not fuseable with Quantum.
    From my understanding, not necessarily. After all, Newton's laws of motion are still entirely correct to within certain acceptable error margins at low speeds and relativity reduces to the same results at the same speeds. Indications are, AFAIK, that in a similar way a single law can one day be wrought that would reduce to either relativity or QM at the appropriate scales and parameters.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Sorry if I throw a spanner in the works, but somewhere the Reletivity Theory must be flawed, since it's not fuseable with Quantum.

    Not quite right.

    Quantum field theories are not inly compatible with special relativity, but in fact were developed precisely as a means of incorporating special relativity in a quantum theory. Am alternate name is relativistic quantum theory.

    What is true is that there is not yet a quantum theory that includes gravity or equivalently that includes general relativity. general relativity is deterministic, while quantum theories are stochastic and that is the major incompatibility.

    There is a great deal of research into a theory that would include both quantum field theories and general relativity in the low energy limit. For instance, that is what the various siring theories are all about. Notice that any successful attempt is required to have general relativity, quantum chromodynamics and the electroweak theories as limiting cases. That is precisely because these theories have been shown to be remarkably accurate within their known domains of validity.

    No one claims that any of theories are the ultimate theory. Quite the opposite. Physics progresses as a series of successively better models and approximations. The current models are not perfect, but they are pretty damn good.

    The statement made by omnibus is just plain absurd and simply demonstrates, once again, that he is completely ignorant of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Maybe it's just me who's been sleeping my beauty sleep for too long, but ..Einstein spend rest of his life trying to fuse his Relativity Theory to Quantum, where in the process has science been making a bridge/bridges as of late?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Maybe it's just me who's been sleeping my beauty sleep for too long, but ..Einstein spend rest of his life trying to fuse his Relativity Theory to Quantum, where in the process has science been making a bridge/bridges as of late?
    Einstein mostly argued against Quantum Mechanics, because he didn't like the random part. Hence his famous quote: "God does not play dice."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Maybe it's just me who's been sleeping my beauty sleep for too long, but ..Einstein spend rest of his life trying to fuse his Relativity Theory to Quantum, where in the process has science been making a bridge/bridges as of late?
    That is not what Einstein spent his time on. He was trying to develop a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism. Einstein never accepted the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics.

    The unification of quantum theories with gravitation remains unsolved. String theory is one research avenue that is being pursued. It is a really difficult problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Maybe it's just me who's been sleeping my beauty sleep for too long, but ..Einstein spend rest of his life trying to fuse his Relativity Theory to Quantum, where in the process has science been making a bridge/bridges as of late?
    That is not what Einstein spent his time on. He was trying to develop a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism. Einstein never accepted the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics.

    The unification of quantum theories with gravitation remains unsolved. String theory is one research avenue that is being pursued. It is a really difficult problem.
    Thanks for excellent answer DrRocket.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    741
    Hexhammer perhaps quantum theory is flawed because it doesn't fuse with Relativity Theory?
    Getting a consistent Theory of Everything has been a major task of theoretical physics and I can't say I'm qualified to judge the success to date. I know that Einstein was reputedly resistant to accepting the validity of Quantum theory and it limited his ongoing contributions to physics however I note that he couldn't have totally dismissed it - bose-einstein condensates are a quantum phenomena that he contributed to predicting.
    Um... Omnibus' original post seems to be absent. Am I missing something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos
    Um... Omnibus' original post seems to be absent. Am I missing something?
    I believe sox extracted it from another thread where the discusison would have been off-topic. I notice Omnibus has failed, so far, to respond. That may indicate that while he is stupid he is no fool. If you don't provoke, they won't react.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Omnibus's original post exists elsewhere, buried within a thread that is now rightfully in the Pseudoscience folder called Faraday's Law is False!. It appears elsewhere as well but I care not to mention all of them.

    You are missing nothing other than the fact that Omnibus does not truly step up to the plate when he's challenged on his assertions which have been confirmed as empty ones thus far.

    He is good for nothing more (in this case) than giving shreds of hope to those who only seek to challenge and successfully defeat a widely accepted scientific concept in order to appear as some sort of rebellious genius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos
    Hexhammer perhaps quantum theory is flawed because it doesn't fuse with Relativity Theory?
    Getting a consistent Theory of Everything has been a major task of theoretical physics and I can't say I'm qualified to judge the success to date. I know that Einstein was reputedly resistant to accepting the validity of Quantum theory and it limited his ongoing contributions to physics however I note that he couldn't have totally dismissed it - bose-einstein condensates are a quantum phenomena that he contributed to predicting.
    Um... Omnibus' original post seems to be absent. Am I missing something?
    There are two schools of thought. By far the majority of physicists think that general relativity will have to be modified to become a quantum theory. Among other things, that is a feature of string theories. An awful lot of smart people are in this camp.

    A minority are of the belief that GR will survive in pretty much its current form and that quantum theories will be replaced by something else. Among that minority is Roger Penrose. Gerard 'tHooft has done some research on deterministic theories that might produce quantum-like effects. Penrose and 'tHooft are also in the "as smart as it gets "category.

    I don't have any idea which side will prevail. That is what makes research interesting and why positive statements regarding how research will eventually turn out ought to be ignored. There is WAY too speculation presented as fact in popularizations of modern physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    . I notice Omnibus has failed, so far, to respond. That may indicate that while he is stupid he is no fool.[color=white] If you don't provoke, they won't react.
    I can certainly agree with half of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    There is WAY too speculation presented as fact in popularizations of modern physics.
    Amen.

    I suspect that the GUT will involve an intersection of subsets of QT(QED, Standard Model, Etc..) and GR(SR too of course) and some of their mutual complement. I am personally inclined toward it(GUT) being discreet and stochastic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    There is WAY too speculation presented as fact in popularizations of modern physics.
    Amen.

    I suspect that the GUT will involve an intersection of subsets of QT(QED, Standard Model, Etc..) and GR(SR too of course) and some of their mutual complement. I am personally inclined toward it(GUT) being discreet and stochastic.
    nope

    A Grand Unified Theory (GUT), by definition, is a unified theory that includes the electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics, but need not include gravity (general relativity). All quantum field theories already include special relativity, which is the reason that they were developed in the first place -- replacing elementary quantum mechanics with a relativistic quantum theory.

    A theory that would include both quantum field theories and gravity would be called a Theory of Everything (TOE), though the name is unfortunately pretentious.

    I am not sure what you mean by discreet. Quantum theories are inherently stochastic, but not discreet. The discreet nature comes from the fact that most solutions, but not all, are related to the discreet part of the spectrum of the operators that represent observables. Spacetime in these theories is not discreet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    I guess I meant TOE and not GUT. There's got to be a joke in there somewhere.
    When I say discreet I mean as opposed to continuum, which at this point is just a personal thought. Discreet math's seem more neat and symmetrical to me. At this point I make no claims of validity or even evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I guess I meant TOE and not GUT. There's got to be a joke in there somewhere.
    When I say discreet I mean as opposed to continuum, which at this point is just a personal thought. Discreet math's seem more neat and symmetrical to me. At this point I make no claims of validity or even evidence.
    The issue is what it is that you think would be discreet.

    As noted there are aspects of quantum mechanics that are discreet -- energy levels of bound states of the electron for instance. But in current quantum theories the spacetime background is not discreet.

    However, there are some thoughts that a successful theory will have either no a priori background (loop quantum gravity advocates think they are pursuing such a theory) or that spacetime itself will be seen to be discreet at the smallest scales (this is often seen in popularizations). Thus far attempts at models of spacetime as a lattice (discreet) have not worked.

    When one adopts a discreet model of spacetime, one loses the whole mathematical machine that is manifold theory and differential geometry. But perhaps nature doesn't care. Nobody knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    I suspect that the "background" for the existential is indeed without a priori. However the "bit's" of the existential(matter, energy) I suspect as wholly discreet, so therefore the geometric distribution of these "bit's" and the probabilities of their kinetics should be analyzable from a discreet perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I suspect that the "background" for the existential is indeed without a priori. However the "bit's" of the existential(matter, energy) I suspect as wholly discreet, so therefore the geometric distribution of these "bit's" and the probabilities of their kinetics should be analyzable from a discreet perspective.
    ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    therefore the geometric distribution of these "bit's" and the probabilities of their kinetics should be analyzable from a discreet perspective.
    This made me chuckle. Don't think you've quite got the hang of what is meant be discrete in the quantum arena.

    Back on topic though. The whole idea that space itself could be quantised is really rather amazing.

    As is trying to bridge classical/quantum theory. To my mind this is the most exciting time in theoretical physics since the early 20th century!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Sorry about the amorphousness of my TOE. It's still very preliminary. I don't understand quantum whats'it for poo. I'm using "discreet" in the manner of unit quanta(I think, maybe. How to say "McDonald's" in Swahili?).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •