I need some information

[HIENVN]

I hope I'm not alone in the opinion that subsiquent generations need to be protected from ubsubstantiated assertions, from people that apparently dont understand the science in the first place .

 

 

Who are beside you when you said you’re not alone? I am not alone when I said “relativity theory is wrong” because of:

1) The Nobel Prizes for Physics have not been awarded for relativity theory.

2) Einstein recognized some defeats of his relativity theory in 1923.

3) Scientists of NOVA string theory have rejected relativity theory in their theory but they still gather a lot of successfulness, which everyone can not disclaim.

[HIENVN]

I

 

Theories do need to be constantly tested(that's just good science), but false assertions are a blight on impressionable minds.

 

Experiments of the scientists around the world since 1916 (that was predicted by Einstein’s general relativity theory) have not proved the existence of gravitational waves on the earth, while these waves are existed on anywhere. The NASA (The National Aeronautics & Space) and the ESA (The European Space Agency) have wished will discover gravitational waves in 2015 with a cooperated program that they named LISA (The Light Interferometer Space Antenna, their plan is to launch three satellites into orbit around the sun in 2015).

How long do you have to wait for the discovery of gravitational waves if LISA is false in 2015? I do not wait for LISA because I knew gravitational waves were detected since 1930’s on the earth!

[HIENVN]

The key here is(even if you dont understand the science itself) to atleast understand the scientific process before making ludicrous claims.

 

You are defending relativity theory while you do not understand the history of Einstein! You are in the idea of Einstein before 1920 and you said relativity theory is right, but I said relativity theory is wrong because I am in the idea of Einstein since 1920.

How do you understand the scientific process? Einstein understood the scientific process when he recognized some lacks of his relativity theory in 1923.

[HIENVN]

No!:) he produced 2 papers introducing relativity! The first on special, and the second 10 years later incorporating gravity ( the general paper).

 

 

He surely produced more than 4 papers which regarded relativity in some way.

 

I had a wrong when I said Einstein introduce 4 papers in 1905.

According to World Book 2001, “1905 was an epoch-making one in the history of physical science, because Einstein contributed three papers to Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), a German scientific periodical. Each of them became the basis of a new branch of physics… In a second paper, titled "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein presented the special theory of relativity. In this paper, he showed how the theory demonstrated the relativity of time, a previously unimaginable idea. Einstein's name is most widely known for this theory… In a study published in 1905, Einstein showed the equivalence of mass and energy, expressed in the famous equation E equals m times c-squared.”

That second paper should be having two part of relativity theory:

-Part one: shows the concept of space-time that we don’t need to tell about it, because it is right.

-Part two: shows the energy of matter with Einstein’s equation that we will need to discuss it.

The value of Einstein’s equation would be discussed separately in some forums, not in this forum. What I say in this forum is just a summary that I wish you will not think me as a person doesn’t understand science.

Generally, I have to reject Einstein’s equation because this equation violate a single law of the universe, and it is the cause that scientists can not discover gravitational waves on the earth and it is the cause of Einstein’s failure in his unified field theory.

[HIENVN]

As Tormod says, relativity will not be proven wrong, it will be replaced with something that does the same things and more.

 

 

 

Nobody can replace something of relativity theory if he/she does not know some wrong or lack of that something!

[HIENVN]

Just like Einstein improved on Newton's ideas... Newtonian physics was not proven wrong, just not applicable to all contexts. Einstein's theories did what Newton's did, and more.

 

 

-Can you show me some contexts that Newtonian physics is not applicable?

-Generally, Einstein improved on Newton’s ideas in the wrong way. In my thinking, Einstein will accomplish unified field theory if he improved Newton in the right way.

[HIENVN]

 

We do observe that light is involved in the operation of the universe. We cannot make that go away by saying that "light does not have enough energy". Because, we observe that it does.

 

Maybe I have misunderstood what you said. Please say it again in different words.

I have a mistake in English when I said “light does not have enough energy,” because “energy” can be understand as “power;” therefore, I would like to change that sentence as “light does not have enough ability” and I will edit to correct it.

The light is first use in the observation of universe (telescope…) but it is changing by some equipment that does not use the light. The light that is emitted by an object may so far and so weak, and then an observer can not see this object. In another way, the light may not pass a substance such as a steel wall or mountain.

However, I do not disclaim the value of light in the context of an observation; I would like to say we can not use a light as a means to understand the mechanics of universe, such as Planck used radiation (from a hot object) to understand the mechanics of matter. I just think gravitational waves are a means to understand the mechanics of universe.

 

I will discuss other part on your quote that is related to observation, experiment and theory.

[HIENVN]

This place is much more sophisticated than the other science forum I go to. In that place, everyone (almost everyone) uses chat speak and flames people for mostly no reason.

 

There are so many quotes to treat your ideas in your quote dated 02-17-2007, in which I would like to first treat the above ideas.

Chat speaks and flame people are the characteristics of a forum that we should accept them. Although I hate flame people but I like people flame me for reason or no reason, because my answer to them would develop my skill in English (that I know I am very bad) and I can learn more knowledge if that attack is right.

Sophistication is not bad if its purpose is for a truth. I had to use sophistication to prove for the truth of “relativity theory is wrong” in this forum because this forum is restrict to explain the wrong of relativity theory that almost people think “relativity theory is right.”

I know I may learn something in your ideas because you are the fresh scientist. The fresh scientist may have a truth that the old scientist can not have, because almost old scientist are indoctrinated by the current education in science!

[Tormod]

Does finding an alternative theory not imply that something was wrong with the original theory, in essence that would be saying relativity was wrong, and it is now correct. :D

 

No, for this to be the case, the alternative theory needs to be *better* than relativity to explain what relaitivty explains (to put it simply).

 

Relativity is an alternative to Newton's theories. Einstein showed that while Newton's laws were correct in *most cases*, they *could not* be correct about a few things. Newton assumed a concept of absolute time and instant action at a distance (ie, gravity does not travel bit acts over vast distances without any time lag).

 

A basic example: If the Sun was to suddenly disappear, according to Newton we would sense it immediately, and we would also see it immediately.

 

According to Einstein it would take some time before we sensed and saw it (eight minutes, in fact, because both gravity and light travels at the same speed).

 

Thus Einstein improved upon Newton but did not replace them except when relativity needs to be taken into account - such as in the GPS system, for example.

 

When new theories arise, they are always - *always* - based on earlier theories, and only through experiments and testing can a theory be proven to be better than another. This was what happened when Einstein predicted a more precise perihelion procession for Mercury than Newton. His prediction was verified in 1919.

 

Alternative theories are a good thing, but that more than one theory exist does not mean that any of them is correct. The verification of theories is what the scientific methods does for us - and it can't tell us that a theory is *proven*, but it can tell us that "this theory currently explains what we see better than the other theories do."

 

For other tests of relativity, see Wikipedia:

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tormod]

I had to use sophistication to prove for the truth of “relativity theory is wrong”...

 

But you have not proved relativity wrong. You have only made claims that it is, but you have not provided a shred of evidence except the fact that Einstein never received a Nobel prize for it. You keep repeating the same claims over and over (Einstein before 1921, Einstein after 1921, etc etc) but I am unable to see what it is that you are contributing to this discussion rather than bring confusion into what relativity is and how it works.

 

Einstein did not receive the Nobel prize for relativity, but the Nobel commitee does not, by giving the prize to someone, say that everyone else is wrong.

In fact, many Nobel laureates received the prize for work which uses and confirms relativity.

 

Here is a list:

Einstein's Nobel heritage

[HIENVN]

Einstein did not receive the Nobel prize for relativity, but the Nobel commitee does not, by giving the prize to someone, say that everyone else is wrong.

In fact, many Nobel laureates received the prize for work which uses and confirms relativity.

 

Here is a list:

Einstein's Nobel heritage

Welcome Tormod,

I wished to see you at this forum since your last post dated 02-09-2007, 01:46 PM and I am very happy to see you again in this forum.

You should review my three general points to prove the wrong of relativity theory dated 02-22-2007, 11:18 AM (at this forum) that my first point just prove “The Nobel Prizes for Physics have not been awarded for relativity theory.” In the meantime, you should read the book "Einstein Lived Here;" by Abraham Pais; in the chapter 6 entitled “How Einstein got the Nobel Prize;" Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (May 1, 1994) to know what happened in the 1921’s Nobel Prize for Einstein.

My answer to your quote would be concentrated on the Nobel Prize, some ideas else will be answer in later.

a/ The 1921’s Nobel Committer could not award 1921’s Nobel Prize for Physics to relativity theory because this Committer said (at that time) relativity have not any experiment to prove for its right.

b/ In fact, many Nobel laureates received the prize for work which uses and confirms relativity because they were worked on the right context of relativity theory.

[HIENVN]

We cannot and should not build a "theory" for the universe without FIRST making observations and doing experiments. We must first discover how matter, energy and light behave before we make theories. So, we first observe the operation of the universe. That comes first.

 

Once we know (some part of) the operation of the universe, THEN we can make a theory to explain what we observe.

 

 

What I wrote in the quote dated 02-22-2007, 10:03 AM is just an initial comprehension of the “single law of the universe.” This comprehension is cooperated between The Law of Conservation of Energy and The Newton’s First Law; in the meantime, this comprehension can be used to explain what we observe in the universe.

There are too much difficult to accept the above comprehension, but this comprehension may solve some problems that recent scientists can not solve such as the nature of gravitational waves.

[HIENVN]

Anyways, my hopes at disprooveing a part of realativity is the part about how nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

“Nothing can go faster than the speed of light” is a confirmation of Einstein in his 1905’s special relativity theory, and that sentence is just value when the observer in a fixed position while the object is moving. In the practice, the observer may see something go faster than the speed of light!

[HIENVN]

I hated the way they treated me after posting my theory on how time travle is possible, but cannot infulence the future

 

“Travel to the future” is just a job of the soothsayer and Pokemon rather than for a scientist! The Einstein’s theoretic photons proved people can not go to the future. Suppose we can go faster than the speed of light (obsolute speed), we are just see the past.

[owl]

Relativity is an alternative to Newton's theories. Einstein showed that while Newton's laws were correct in *most cases*, they *could not* be correct about a few things.

 

I would like to modify this to: "Einstein showed that while Newton's laws were approximately correct for most cases, in a few cases they were not even approximately correct." This might seem like nitpicking, but I think there's a philosophically important difference between being true and being just "approximately correct".

 

Newton assumed a concept of absolute time and instant action at a distance (ie, gravity does not travel bit acts over vast distances without any time lag). A basic example: If the Sun was to suddenly disappear, according to Newton we would sense it immediately, and we would also see it immediately.

 

An interesting side note is that this aspect of Newtonian gravitation was felt from the beginning--i.e., in the 1600's--to be unsatisfactory, for what we would now call "philosophical reasons". Even Newton didn't like it. The argument against "action at a distance" then was that "A thing cannot act where it is not."

 

Another interesting note is that Paul Gerber showed that a modified Newtonian theory, in which changes in the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light rather than instantaneously, was capable of recovering the correct figure for the advance of the perihelion of mercury. Petr Beckman derives the result in Einstein Plus Two (1987), pp. 170-5. I don't know any details on this, but this is reported in Maudlin's Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity, 27-8n4. Particularly interesting is that Gerber derived his result 17 years before Einstein.

 

When new theories arise, they are always - *always* - based on earlier theories, and only through experiments and testing can a theory be proven to be better than another.

 

What you say is the orthodox view in science. However, it seems like there could be another way in which one could have justification for replacing an existing theory: what if one had earlier made a mistake in reasoning in accepting a theory? And what if one later discovered this mistake, and furthermore discovered that at the earlier time, had one reasoned correctly, one would have accepted a different theory? In such a case, wouldn't one then have to revise the current theory, despite one's acquiring no new empirical evidence?

 

This, by the way, is analogous to an issue that arises for Bayesian accounts of reasoning: they don't include any mechanism for correcting earlier logical mistakes; they don't need one, since Bayesian agents never make mistakes. But human beings do. A theory of rationality should tell us, not only how you should form beliefs in the light of evidence, but also what you should now do if you haven't done what you should have done earlier.

[CraigD]

Another interesting note is that Paul Gerber showed that a modified Newtonian theory, in which changes in the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light rather than instantaneously, was capable of recovering the correct figure for the advance of the perihelion of mercury. Petr Beckman derives the result in Einstein Plus Two (1987), pp. 170-5. I don't know any details on this, but this is reported in Maudlin's Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity, 27-8n4. Particularly interesting is that Gerber derived his result 17 years before Einstein.

Very interesting notes.

 

I’m having a frustrating time actually reading either Gerber or Beckman’s work, however. Can anyone provide a link to this literature that doesn’t require jstor.org access?

 

Searching uncovered some disturbing mentions of the late Petr Beckman, such as this Salon article (an interesting read), which associates him with

An underground of “dissident” scientists and self-described experts [who] publish their theories in newsletters and on the Web, exchanging ideas in a great battle against "the temple of relativity.

leveling specifically at Beckmann criticism such as

Not so with most cranks. Indeed, a perusal of Internet discussion groups reveals just how thin-skinned and obtuse many can be. Beckmann was a case in point. Disappointed when his self-published book "Einstein Plus Two" attracted no attention among physicists, he took to visiting the newsgroups on the Internet and starting "flame wars," baiting other physicists about shopworn "paradoxes" in relativity -- and always dodging specific challenges about his own work.

This brings to my mind the question “is Beckmann a crank?” – that is, is his work useful science, or something playing to an instinct to attack established scientific theory without first understanding it, even to the extent of ignoring supporting evidence for the established theory and purposefully misapplying the theory to support an argument against it?

 

Though reading the original literature and forming one’s own opinion is best, knowing something about the authors and their circumstances can help to provide context for it.

[owl]

This brings to my mind the question “is Beckmann a crank?” – that is, is his work useful science, or something playing to an instinct to attack established scientific theory without first understanding it, even to the extent of ignoring supporting evidence for the established theory and purposefully misapplying the theory to support an argument against it?

 

I don't know. But I'll say this:

a) There certainly are a lot of cranks. This includes people who think they've designed perpetual motion machines, some people who think they've refuted particle physics or the Big Bang, some people who think they've derived the Axiom of Parallels from the other axioms.

:doh: No doubt the ranks of cranks include a good number of people who claim to have refuted relativity.

c) There are good reasons why science is conservative. There are good reasons for resisting changes to existing theories. The overwhelming majority of times that someone says accepted theories are wrong, that person is wrong and either doesn't understand the accepted theories or doesn't know all the evidence for them.

 

(

Entertaining side note:

The journal

Philosophy of Science

includes the following in their instructions for authors at journal.philsci.org/AuthorInfo/:

"Special note for papers on special relativity, general relativity, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution:

If your paper's central claim is that one of these theories is incorrect, or if it crucially relies on such a claim, then your paper is not appropriate for this journal, even if your argument is based on philosophical, social, historical, or other, perhaps non-empirical, considerations, and even if you draw philosophical consequences from your conclusion that one or more of these theories is incorrect. Any such claim belongs in the relevant scientific journal. Please do not waste our time and yours by sending us a paper that falls into this category. It will not be considered. Thank you."

It's extremely rare for a philosophy journal, or any publisher in philosophy, to include a special prohibition on papers defending a specific thesis. In fact, this is the only case I know of (setting aside certain prohibitions in the middle ages). Presumably the motivation is that they got too many articles from cranks. Their statement that "any such claim belongs in the relevant scientific journal" is of course disingenuous.)

 

Now, having said all that, I also point out:

d) Even a crank can make a correct point.

e) Every once in a while, that guy who says everyone else is wrong is actually right.

f) Sometimes science's conservatism stands in the way of intellectual progress. My favorite example is the case of Wegner and the theory of continental drift. This theory took several decades to finally be accepted, and this was probably in large part because of Wegner's polemical writing style--he was, however, correct, and for the right reasons.

g) I know next to nothing about either Paul Gerber or Petr Beckman. However, I know Maudlin, and if he says that the derivation of the precession of Mercury is correct, then it is. (Maudlin is not an anti-relativist, either.)