Page 1 of 34 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1004

Thread: Einstien's Relativity Error

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    73

    Einstien's Relativity Error

    The claims of the author after a mathematical demonstration are:
    http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
    Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)...(ve) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity... This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for Special Relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether. The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy-density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.
    Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density. Perhaps, the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!
    http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html

    Comments?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,479
    What... What does that...all...mean...?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196

    Re: Einstien's Relativity Error

    Quote Originally Posted by d 2022
    The claims of the author after a mathematical demonstration are:
    http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html


    Comments?
    From your link:

    In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity.

    Ahh, a death-bed confession!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    Death-bed confession, the most valuble of all pieces of evidence!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    I had a quick look at the page, and the first impression is that his conclusions are based on misconceptions and wishful thinking (he seems to like the analogy between sound waves and electromagnetic waves, which can be misleading).

    He seems to ignore the reasons why physiciists accept Relativity and its conclusions.

    And the idea that an "Unified Theory" has been developed by physicists, but has not been disclosed to the public yet, is just ridiculous.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,479
    Because the public really gives a care when it comes to the UFT...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,364
    To its credit though the webpage does have math, something usually lacking from most people attacking Einstein. Hopefully a poster here can highlight if there are any errors in the equations.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13
    I've run into many people who "claim" to have evidence demonstrating that relativity or quantum mechanics is false. It bugs me every time. Even if you could prove them to be wrong, it would be a worthless proof. Mainly, because both predict many things that have been verified countless times. If you were to prove that they were wrong, then at the same time, you would have to present your own theory, that is different, but comes to the EXACT same conclusions. The people making these claims never seem to realize this. It seems to me that most of the general public considers these "theories" (quantum especially) to be completely theoretical in nature, and don't realize that a lot of our modern technology and most of the information age wouldn't be possible if quantum mechanics weren't true.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196

    Re: Einstien's Relativity Error

    Quote Originally Posted by d 2022
    Comments?
    When Einstein wrote the SR theory in 1905, he still thought the universe was “fixed” and that the highest speeds of astronomical bodies were the speeds of the planets and comets in their orbits, and those speeds were very slow, when compared to the speed of light.

    So he postulated the speed of light to be “c” relative to “empty space”, thinking that “empty space” was pretty much “stationary” with all the stationary and “fixed” stars.

    When he assumed this about light speed, and considered the motion of the planets and observers on the planets, then he had to alter the rates of the observers’ clocks in order to keep the speed of light always at “c”, relative to all observers.

    You can do one or the other, admit that the speed of light changes as it travels through different areas of space, or claim that all the clock rates change so that light speed will always remain “c”, relative to all observers.

    But, the entire situation is a little more complicated than that. Turns out that light speed changes in space, AND clock rates change due to different environmental factors.

    First, all the electrodynamics experiments of the 19th Century were conducted at the surface of the earth. That means that some of the results might have been influenced by the earth’s local “fields”, such as the electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields, and, thus, some of Maxwell’s equations and theories might have reflected that fact. In other words, all of the 19th Century electrical and mechanical experiments produced “geocentric” results. This is why several nations are having many specific scientific experiments conducted on the International Space Station, so they can be conducted outside the direct “pulling” influence of the earth’s gravitational field.

    Normally, we don’t think of the earth’s fields putting up any “resistance” to our motion through them. In fact, the urban legend is that anything that moves through “space” in orbit above the earth, will feel no “resistance” to its motion through any of the fields, but that’s not always true, as revealed in the NASA tether experiment.

    The long wire of the tether feels a “drag effect” on it, caused by the wire moving through the earth’s magnetic field. This drag effect is what caused the NASA tether to fall behind the space shuttle after it snapped (you can find this information on several science websites).

    It was Lorentz who first predicted that such a “force” existed when atoms moved through fields. In fact, this was the basis of his “speed limit of c” hypothesis, which Einstein later made famous.

    Lorentz thought there was a “universe stationary ether”, and in his theories he treated the ether as a kind of “field”. He hypothesized that “c” was the “speed limit” for objects (“ponderablen Körpern”, “ponderable bodies”) moving through that “field”, and he also hypothesized that atoms would “shrink” in the direction of motion through that “field”. This was the origin of the “length contraction” concept, and the “speed limit of c”, since at the speed of “c”, he thought all bodies would shrivel up to “plane figures”.

    A modern interpretation of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment suggests that the MM apparatus was NOT moving through any “universal ether”, but it was stationary inside the earth’s own “local ether”, which some people think might be the earth’s own local gravity field.

    In fact, after developing his 1911 gravitational redshift theory, Einstein began to think of local gravity fields as a kind of light-speed-regulating “ether”. As he said in one of his 1918 papers:

    “There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”

    And also in one of his 1920 papers:

    “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”

    One of the top urban legends in science today is the belief that Einstein never admitted to the possible existence of an “ether”. This legend persists because so many people who believe it have never read his papers in which he discussed the “fields” of space acting as a kind of light propagating “ether”.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,479
    When Einstein wrote the SR theory in 1905, he still thought the universe was “fixed” and that the highest speeds of astronomical bodies were the speeds of the planets and comets in their orbits, and those speeds were very slow, when compared to the speed of light.
    And he continued to assume the same while formulating GR as well. You implied in the Doppler shift thread that GR was a sort of apology for SR's postulate of c being a universal constant. Edwin Hubble didn't show the universe to be expanding until the late 1920's, more than 10 years after General Relativity.

    So he postulated the speed of light to be “c” relative to “empty space”, thinking that “empty space” was pretty much “stationary” with all the stationary and “fixed” stars.
    No. No no no no no. SR doesn't say anything about space. Einstein still considered space to be nothing but emptiness in 1905, i.e. the "fabric of space-time" hadn't even been thought of. So, what's the speed of anything relative to nothing? Einstein's postulate is, very simply, that the speed of light is a constant for all observers in an inertial (i.e. unaccelerating) frame.

    When he assumed this about light speed, and considered the motion of the planets and observers on the planets, then he had to alter the rates of the observers’ clocks in order to keep the speed of light always at “c”, relative to all observers.

    You can do one or the other, admit that the speed of light changes as it travels through different areas of space, or claim that all the clock rates change so that light speed will always remain “c”, relative to all observers.
    And Einstein chose to advance both physics and philosophy by choosing the latter. Subsequent experiments have since validated his choice.

    But, the entire situation is a little more complicated than that. Turns out that light speed changes in space, AND clock rates change due to different environmental factors.
    Yes, the speed of light depends on the medium through which it passes. A body's clock speed depends on both the speed and acceleration (or an equivalent external gravitational field) of said body.

    Normally, we don’t think of the earth’s fields putting up any “resistance” to our motion through them. In fact, the urban legend is that anything that moves through “space” in orbit above the earth, will feel no “resistance” to its motion through any of the fields, but that’s not always true, as revealed in the NASA tether experiment.

    The long wire of the tether feels a “drag effect” on it, caused by the wire moving through the earth’s magnetic field. This drag effect is what caused the NASA tether to fall behind the space shuttle after it snapped (you can find this information on several science websites).
    That's some urban legend. Usually, they involve people dying, disappearing, or something else spooky, not fully predictable phenomena. In fact, I performed a rather simple experiment in the lab this year dealing with electromagnetic induction and drag.

    A modern interpretation of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment suggests that the MM apparatus was NOT moving through any “universal ether”, but it was stationary inside the earth’s own “local ether”, which some people think might be the earth’s own local gravity field.
    Stellar aberration is widely considered to be the downfall of the "local aether" or "aetheral dragging" hypotheses. Basically, if there was a stationary aether surrounding the Earth which passed with it through a universal aether, starlight would be refracted in such a way as to cancel out stellar aberration.

    And if you want to think of the gravitational field as some sort of medium for the passage of light waves, then you'd have to expect the speed of light to depend on gravitational field strength. The stronger the field, the more quickly one would expect light to propagate. As such, one would expect any light coming from a deep gravitational well to be blue shifted. I don't think that agrees with observations...

    Err, ignore that bit. I really need to learn to not do any thinking before my morning tea.


    From superstringtheory.com's forum:

    Quote Originally Posted by DickT
    Recapitulating, we may say that according to the eneral theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether.

    Because of General Covariance, space(time) had different properties at one point than another; it was not a fixed backgound but a participant in the physics. So Einstein felt justified in calling it an ether. Today we call this property "background independence", and it may well survive relativity if the loop quantum gravity researchers succeed as they desire in incorporating it into their quantum version of spacetime.
    So, as far as ol' Al goes, you seem to be getting hung up on a word which was used as an analogy to demonstrate his concept of space-time.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    So he postulated the speed of light to be “c” relative to “empty space”, thinking that “empty space” was pretty much “stationary” with all the stationary and “fixed” stars.
    No. No no no no no. SR doesn't say anything about space.

    Here’s a direct quote of the original “constancy” postulate, from “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, 1905:

    ”light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    A body's clock speed depends on both the speed and acceleration (or an equivalent external gravitational field) of said body.
    You should say “atomic clock rate”. The Lorentz-force atomic clock rule, as used by Einstein, applies to atomic clocks only, i.e. to atomic oscillation rates. It does not apply to pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, balance wheel clocks, thermodynamic clocks, etc., etc.

    Geepers, go read the original papers and books on this subject.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    In fact, I performed a rather simple experiment in the lab this year dealing with electromagnetic induction and drag.
    Well, tell us what you found out from your experiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    And if you want to think of the gravitational field as some sort of medium for the passage of light waves, then you'd have to expect the speed of light to depend on gravitational field strength. The stronger the field, the more quickly one would expect light to propagate. As such, one would expect any light coming from a deep gravitational well to be blue shifted. I don't think that agrees with observations...
    No, the stronger the field, the more slowly light propagates, and the stronger the field the more slowly the atoms oscillate, and they emit light at a lower frequency. The “redshift” occurs as the light is being emitted by a slowly oscillating atom. The slow speed of the light emerging from a gravity well does not contribute to the redshift. The light is emitted already redshifted. Read Einstein’s 1911 theory about this. He explains it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    So, as far as ol' Al goes, you seem to be getting hung up on a word which was used as an analogy to demonstrate his concept of space-time.
    Do you know who called it the “aether” first, in relation to gravity fields? Do you know who first said that light beams will bend when they pass near astronomical bodies? Do you know who said that the “gravity fields” are responsible for such bending?

    Newton.

    Read his “Optics”, 1704 edition.

    Geepers! Go to a big library and read some good books, instead of getting all your information off the internet. Turn your computer off and go to a library.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    588
    sam, you are so off base it isn't even funny.

    Sure, einstien thought the universe was fixed, in a steady state situation. However SR had NOTHING to do with that!

    As for his concept of how fast things went. Thats pure **. SR's entire purpose was to create a system for which all physical laws hold for everyone. So people going at different speeds didn't have to use different laws. This is needed because various physical laws, especially electromagnetism, said a stationary observer would see an unbroken set of magnetic field lines, while a moving one would see discontinuities (and discontinuities don't even make sense!). I.e. the laws of physics should hold for everyone, regardless of their motion or situation. Therefore they need to be re-written in a format that allows that to work.

    Einstein postulated that C was relative to EVERYTHING, not just empty space. Otherwise different people could get different values for C, which would violate the expression for the speed of light derived from Maxwell's equations. I.e. their expressions for the speed of light would have to be entirely different, just because they're moving.

    Classical Electrodynamics were very well understood in the 19th century, notice I said classical, which refers to the general realm of macroscopic, slow, low gravity (notice low like earths, not zero-g). Most of the experiments held were either 1) Not sensitive to gravity or 2) took that into account. Same goes for ambient magnetic and electrical fields.

    As such the "enviromental" factors you rest your case on are considered, and mitigated. I.e. they found ways to make their clocks robust and accurate in the conditions at hand. What standard enviromental effect can you think of thats going to disturb an atomic clock (which is found to be accurate to 1 nanosecond per 1000 years or somesuch figure).

    The "speed limit of c" was founded by Maxwell, not Lorentz.

    The michelson morely experiment said a) the light was moving in a local ether around earth or b) there was no ether. It turns out to be B because A would cause difflection of starlight (and thus a stars positon would shift) as the ligth entered the non-moving ether and intot he ether that follows earth. This is analogous to how an object appears "bent" when you put it in water.

    The ether you quote einstien about is not the Ether of electromagnetics. It is instead that of space-time, which he describes as being everywhere, and is a maleable medium. This space-time ether, however, does not have many of the attributes of the electromagnetic ether. Such as light is its basis, not the otherway around. It is not variations in the space-time ether that cause light. Light uses it as a medium no more than sound does.


    UT, in 1905 einstien didn't consider space empty, but he did not then understand how to treat gravity, so he started with a simpler, more restriction (therefore special) relativity theory.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    ?light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.?
    That empty space bit does not say relative to empty space. What he means, and it's taken to mean by every other person, and physicist (you know, people who learned this from him and his students?) was:

    Empty space = VACUUM.

    There is no magnetic or electrical resistance, so you use the permisivity and permeability of free space constants. This is as opposed to the values for those constant when measure in say, ohh, a dielectric (aka electrically insulating material). The change in these constants is the entire reason why light undergoes refraction through various materials.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    588
    Atomic clocks measure time, and so do all those other you mentioned. Atomic clocks are merely the most accurate clocks we've ever made.

    So what is this gibberish about the lorentz atomic clock rule? I've never, ever heard of that.

    Great, newton labeled a medium called Aether in 1704, and einstein said his space-time had some properties (in a very specific sense, did you catch that part of the quote: in this sense...) similar to that.


    Just like someone can say: The earth is round, like an orange. It doesn't mean the earth is an orange, just that it shares some qualities.

    Oh yea, and Of all the newtonian and classical mechanics I've studied over the years, not once has "gravity bending light" been attributed to any of Newtons work.

    No, the stronger the field, the more slowly light propagates, and the stronger the field the more slowly the atoms oscillate, and they emit light at a lower frequency. The ?redshift? occurs as the light is being emitted by a slowly oscillating atom. The slow speed of the light emerging from a gravity well does not contribute to the redshift. The light is emitted already redshifted. Read Einstein?s 1911 theory about this. He explains it.
    Okay, how can you understand and accept that, but get so much of his other stuff wrong?

    BTW, the speed of light is constant, even in a gravity well. Its the fact that time is so distorted that the osscillation rate is percieved as all screwed up.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Einstein was a little surprised in 1911 when he discovered that the gravity fields in space could control the local speed of light through them. It was after this that he started talking about the “ether” qualities of gravity fields.

    Although he called space “empty” in his 1905 theory, in the 1952 appendix to his 1916 book he said:

    There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”

    By then he knew that the gravity fields of space have some influence on the local speed of light.

    There is quite a big difference between his “empty space” opinion of his 1905 theory and his “no empty space” opinion of 1952. He had learned a lot during those 47 years.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricimer

    BTW, the speed of light is constant, even in a gravity well. Its the fact that time is so distorted that the osscillation rate is percieved as all screwed up.
    Oh, don’t feed me that. I saw Shapiro in a TV interview last night and he said that light speed slows down when the light passes through a gravity field. He proved it in the 1960s with his radar signals.

    What Einstein said happened, in his 1911 theory, is that atomic oscillations slow down in a gravity field AND light speed slows down in a gravity field.

    This is a normal function of atoms, which emit light, and it's a normal function of the light they emit.

    Nothing is “screwed up” in a gravity well. Light speed slows down in a gravity well and atomic oscillations slow down in a gravity well. So, the local slowly-oscillating atoms (atomic clocks) in that same gravity field measure the slow-moving light speed to be “c”. There is nothing “screwed up” about that. That’s just the way things are. It is not all of “time itself” that is distorted in a gravity well, it is the oscillation rates of the atoms, and the frequency of light they emit, that slows down, along with the speed of light too.

    Shapiro’s clocks were on earth, and that’s what allowed him to notice the slow down in the speed of the returning radar EM waves as they passed near the sun. They don’t slow down if they don’t pass near the sun. They do slow down when they pass through the strong gravity field near the sun.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    A body's clock speed depends on both the speed and acceleration (or an equivalent external gravitational field) of said body.
    You should say “atomic clock rate”. The Lorentz-force atomic clock rule, as used by Einstein, applies to atomic clocks only, i.e. to atomic oscillation rates.
    Let's see Sam5, for the fifth or sixth time. The Lorentz force deals with charged particles moving in a magnetic field and has nothing to do with the motion of uncharged particles or the rate at which time moves. Perhaps we can clear this up for you. Why do you keep confusing the Lorentz force with Lorentz's ideas about the motion of other bodies? What don't you understand about this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    It does not apply to pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, balance wheel clocks, thermodynamic clocks, etc., etc.
    It most certainly does. Atomic clocks, pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks balance wheel clocks thermodynamic clocks all are affected by relative motion or acceleration. This is because all of them measure time and time itself is what is affected by motion and acceleration. Other effects of the acceleration (motion of the pendulum for example) could add an additional effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Geepers, go read the original papers and books on this subject.
    Geepers, go to school and take the math and relativity classes so you have a better understanding of the theories. Instead of taking quotes out of context from Einstein's papers and books.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    It does not apply to pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, balance wheel clocks, thermodynamic clocks, etc., etc.
    It most certainly does. Atomic clocks, pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks balance wheel clocks thermodynamic clocks all are affected by relative motion or acceleration. This is because all of them measure time and time itself is what is affected by motion and acceleration. Other effects of the acceleration (motion of the pendulum for example) could add an additional effect.
    LOL, that is just a rumor. I doubt if you know what “time itself” is. Would you care to give us a definition of “time itself”?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    LOL, that is just a rumor. I doubt if you know what “time itself” is. Would you care to give us a definition of “time itself”?
    Since you are so well-versed in the scientific literature of the 18th and 19th centuries, maybe you should give us your definition of "time itself"? Might even save some of us a bit of "time itself".

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    It does not apply to pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, balance wheel clocks, thermodynamic clocks, etc., etc.
    It most certainly does. Atomic clocks, pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks balance wheel clocks thermodynamic clocks all are affected by relative motion or acceleration. This is because all of them measure time and time itself is what is affected by motion and acceleration. Other effects of the acceleration (motion of the pendulum for example) could add an additional effect.
    LOL, that is just a rumor. I doubt if you know what “time itself” is. Would you care to give us a definition of “time itself”?
    Well, let's see. In another thread, you were asked the same question, and never did give an answer. Unlike you however, I will answer (as I did in the other thread). It is the interval on the time axis, between two events. In SR, that interval can be different for different observers, depending on the observer's velocity. In GR, that interval can be different for different observers depending on their relative velocity, relative acceleration, or a difference in gravitational potential.

    Now Sam5, what is YOUR definition?

    And I guess you now finally understand the difference between the Lorentz force and Lorentz's idea on moving bodies, since you didn't ask about it. So we can look forward to you not using the Lorentz Force as an idea in regards to the relative motion of uncharged bodies, right?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    So he postulated the speed of light to be “c” relative to “empty space”, thinking that “empty space” was pretty much “stationary” with all the stationary and “fixed” stars.
    No. No no no no no. SR doesn't say anything about space.

    Here’s a direct quote of the original “constancy” postulate, from “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, 1905:

    ”light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”
    Yes, yes. So what does that say about space? Nothing. Rather, it says that the speed of light is a definite, constant value c in the absence of any medium.

    You should say “atomic clock rate”. The Lorentz-force atomic clock rule, as used by Einstein, applies to atomic clocks only, i.e. to atomic oscillation rates. It does not apply to pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, balance wheel clocks, thermodynamic clocks, etc., etc.
    I'd love to know where you got the idea that clocks could be fundamentally different from each other. They are measurers of time. That's what makes them a clock.

    Well, tell us what you found out from your experiment.
    That -- surprise, surprise -- a wire moving through a magnetic field has a current induced inside it, which induces a magnetic field around it, which opposes the motion of the wire through the field. This "urban legend" is taking place in high school and undergraduate physics labs the world over.

    No, the stronger the field, the more slowly light propagates, and the stronger the field the more slowly the atoms oscillate, and they emit light at a lower frequency. The “redshift” occurs as the light is being emitted by a slowly oscillating atom. The slow speed of the light emerging from a gravity well does not contribute to the redshift. The light is emitted already redshifted. Read Einstein’s 1911 theory about this. He explains it.
    Because you're obviously an observant and well read individual, I'll assume that you simply misinterpreted the idea behind changing the colour of the text there, and saying 'forget that bit, I was wrong'.

    Do you know who called it the “aether” first, in relation to gravity fields? Do you know who first said that light beams will bend when they pass near astronomical bodies? Do you know who said that the “gravity fields” are responsible for such bending?

    Newton.

    Read his “Optics”, 1704 edition.

    Geepers! Go to a big library and read some good books, instead of getting all your information off the internet. Turn your computer off and go to a library.
    Strangely, I did know that Newton called it the aether. I also know that people respectfully spell it "aether" because there's a group of chemicals known as "ethers". See that? Applied knowledge!

    Newton's theory was that light particles had mass, with red being the most massive. Thus, any beam of light passing through a gravitational field should be spread out into its spectrum. From what I understand of GR, though, this prism effect shouldn't be observed since the geodesic should be the same at all wavelengths. At least, that's the preconception I'll be taking into my GR class next semester.

    Oh, and geepers! Learn how to interpret theories, instead of just pulling quotes from papers and books.


    Einstein was a little surprised in 1911 when he discovered that the gravity fields in space could control the local speed of light through them. It was after this that he started talking about the “ether” qualities of gravity fields.
    No, Einstein was surprised that gravitational fields could ACCELERATE light. The speed of light, however, remains constant in these fields. It merely changes directions. Ricimer explains what Einie meant by "ether qualities".

    Although he called space “empty” in his 1905 theory, in the 1952 appendix to his 1916 book he said:

    ”There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”
    That's right. There is no such thing as empty space. There's not even such thing as a vacuum. Quantum Mechanics tells us that we cannot guarantee a vacuum. But the presence of fields in space do not alter the speed of light, and the spacing of atoms in "empty" space is such that no optical effects are found.

    By then he knew that the gravity fields of space have some influence on the local speed of light.
    I'd love to see you explain this line.

    There is quite a big difference between his “empty space” opinion of his 1905 theory and his “no empty space” opinion of 1952. He had learned a lot during those 47 years.
    No there's not. The electric field was known of years before 1905. Faraday discovered it in the 1820s. He even assumed that it was infinite in span. So Al couldn't have meant that space had no fields in 1905. His revision is probably just a note, enforcing the idea that fields exist everywhere, even in a vacuum.


    Here's a question for you: You stated earlier that redshifts occur due to slowly oscillating atoms. Why are they oscillating slowly?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,479
    Oh, and for the love of my sanity, can't you just respond to things in a single thread? It's really, really easy to just type [/quote] after the first thing you wish to comment on, and then use the 'Quote' button to quote other blocks of text independently.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    By then he knew that the gravity fields of space have some influence on the local speed of light.
    I thought you said you agreed with GR? After all, in GR, gravity is nothing more that a curvature of space. There is no gravity field in GR.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208

    Re: Einstien's Relativity Error

    Quote Originally Posted by d 2022
    The claims of the author after a mathematical demonstration are:
    http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html
    Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)...(ve) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity... This means Einstein used

    snip

    , an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!
    http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-5.html

    Comments?
    It's basically worthless. The posted website is exerpts from the book "The Cosmic Conspiracy" by Stan Deyo. He also maintains the website "The Millenium Ark". From the "Ark" Website: "everything from dreams and prophecy to science and spiritual matters to LOTS of emergency preparedness information. "
    He is evidently either trying or has produced movie with with Stanton Friedman, Dr. Alan Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Ken Arnold, Betty Hill and Ray Palmer The above, in addition to his apparent status as an "authority" on UFOs and Atlantis, is not exactly something that would inspire confidence in his conclusions about Einstein. Especially as he either misrepresents or misunderatands several experiments that he claims "refute" Einstein.
    I will end here as any other comments I would make about the above sites and conclusions may get me banned.
    I spent some time there tonight, trying to understand exactly his objective is and my brain is fried. I'm looking at the math and will try to get back to you tomorrow.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    73
    [quote="Ut"][quote="Sam5"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    Although he called space ?empty? in his 1905 theory, in the 1952 appendix to his 1916 book he said:

    ?There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.?
    That's right. There is no such thing as empty space. There's not even such thing as a vacuum. Quantum Mechanics tells us that we cannot guarantee a vacuum.
    I want to know if a field was detected inside a high vacuum chamber?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35
    From Martin Selbrede's article
    http://www.geocentricity.com/rebuttal.htm

    "In short, "empty" space is not a vacuum; it is not a "nothing," it is a "something." Correspondingly, it has properties and attributes that "nothingness" cannot possess. Dr. Robert J. Moon, Professor Emeritus in Physics at the University of Chicago, published an article in 21st Century, May-June, 1988, pg. 26ff, entitled "Space Must Be Quantized," addressing precisely this issue. He points out that "according to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has a structure. ...This impedance equals 376+ ohms." This reactive, energy-storing impedance is a natural corollary of geocentric theory and its ultradense firmament; it has not been accounted for by conventional science, and is not contained within either Newton's dynamics or Einstein's gravitational field equations."

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    505
    Getting back to the original website, it's junk. The author of that site insists that Einstein based special relativity on the concept of fluidic space. However, in "Zur Elektrodynamische bewegeter Korper," Einstein explicitly states that the idea of the ether is totally unnecessary and that all attempts to find an ether have failed completely. Moreover, he provides a theory - subsequently proved by experiment - that explains how things move *without* having to postulate an ether. Naturally, he applied Ockham's Razor and scrapped the whole idea of the ether.

Similar Threads

  1. Getting Error Messages In Error.
    By BigDon in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-25, 02:16 AM
  2. Time in Episode Relativity, Relativity and more Relativity.
    By pleclair in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-16, 10:27 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-29, 03:14 AM
  4. Podcast: Relativity, Relativity and More Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-27, 09:40 PM
  5. question on Einstien
    By Grand_Lunar in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-23, 10:24 AM

Posting Permissions

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