Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part I

Part I, II, III

Abstract

Relativists love to point to experiments that confirm the predictions of Einstein's special and general relativity theories as evidence for the correctness of Einstein's physics. They love to talk about the beauty and simplicity of the math but there is a lot of ugliness underneath that is kept hidden. In this article, I will argue that there are several fundamental aspects of Einstein's physics that are not just false, but are conceptual disasters that have retarded progress in physics by at least a century. I am talking about the notion of a time dimension, the belief in continuous structures and the often repeated but utterly absurd mantra that absolute motion and position do not exist. These things alone are proof that, as I wrote in my previous article, modern physics is resting on a mountain of crap.

The Physics Community Can Kiss My Ass

The idea that there is a time dimension along which we are moving in one direction or another is so stupid and so detrimental to our understanding of nature that I place it on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. I cringe every time I think about it. At the same time, as a result of a century of relativist indoctrination, it is so entrenched in the public's psyche that I sometimes despair of ever seeing it debunked in my lifetime. But I can always try.

There are a handful of people in the physics community who understand that the time dimension concept is crap but they don't make much noise about it because of the political climate surrounding relativity. Criticizing Einstein's physics is like criticizing Alan Turing in computer science. It is guaranteed to bring a quick end to one's physics career. Luckily for me, I have no such fear. The physics community does not put food on my table and even if they did, I would still tell them to kiss my ass.

Why Is There No Time Dimension?

The short answer is that a time dimension would make motion impossible because a changing time coordinate is self-referential. The slightly longer answer is that motion in time assumes a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical. It is that simple, folks. In other words, things like spacetime trajectories, geodesics, objects moving along their world-lines in spacetime are all hogwash. Nothing moves in spacetime, period. Don't let die-hard relativists pull a wool over your eyes with bullshit non-explanations of why there is motion in spacetime. It's all crap. This simple truth reveals famous physicists like Albert Einstein,  Stephen Hawking (Mr. Black Hole), Michio Kaku (the crackpot on TV), Kip Thorne (Mr. Wormhole), Brian Greene (Mr. String Theory) and others for what they are, a bunch of spacetime crackpots.

The Time Dilation Crap

I am accusing relativists of being a bunch of crackpots and of teaching their crackpottery to generations of students. I am accusing them of putting an effective monkey wrench in the works that prevents the progress of science. Why? Because if there is a time dimension as they claim, there can be no motion. Since motion is observed, there can be no time dimension which means that they are false teachers. The time dimension mindset condemns researchers to chasing after red herrings and prevents them from seeing nature as it is.

Many relativists will, of course, go into an apoplectic fit of rage at my accusations but I don't care. As a rebel, I find it amusing. Some will inevitably retort that time dilation is proof that time can change or that it is a form of time travel. Don't you believe any of it. Clock slowing is not due to time dilation but to energy conservation at work. That's all. Besides, a clock does not measure the passing of time but temporal intervals. If a clock slows down, it follows that the measured intervals will be longer than the previous ones. Time dilation is not just a misnomer, it is a stupid misnomer simply because time cannot change by definition.

Coming Up

As I wrote earlier, time is not the only thing that is wrong with Einstein's physics. In Part II, I will go over the reasons that continuous structures are a pile of crap.

See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

22 comments:

Jim T said...

*sigh*, it's like watching someone throw a fit about the tv being too loud whilst also claiming they have a fully functioning remote control in their pocket.

Your lunacy is astounding.

Publish what you say you've found. Anything else is just noise.

Louis Savain said...

Jim T,

Look, man. I don't owe you shit. You hear me? You, on the other hand, you owe me plenty. You owe me for explaining many things to you that you did not know. You owe me for enlightening you. Just pay up if you know what's good for you.

If you think what I write is noise and if you think I am a lunatic, why do you read my blog? Why do you even bother to comment? You're boring me, man. Pay up, or go away.

Jim T said...

I don't know. I meant the lunacy of having the means to change the situation, yet not use it and just whinge about it instead.

But badly chosen phrasing, I can see why you'd get upset.

That said, I'm also not claiming to believe you, and there's only one thing that can be done about that. Not that *my* belief means anything to you, I get that. But you're making a public statement for a reason of somekind.

So no, I'm not going to believe you anymore than you believe the 'establishment', I don't owe you that.

Louis Savain said...

Jim T:

I don't know. I meant the lunacy of having the means to change the situation, yet not use it and just whinge about it instead.

Well, I am a natural born rebel and I enjoy rubbing the scientific community's nose in their own excrement. If you think I am just whining, my blog is not meant for you. Sorry.

I already told you that I am not at liberty to reveal my work at this time. I am too stupid to be the master of the universe. Even if I had the authority to do as I please (and I don't), I would still think twice before I come out with it. Why? Because I'm seriously frightened by the possible negative consequences. In the meantime, I guess I'll just have some fun.

On the question of belief, I am not asking anybody in particular to believe me. This is why I go through the trouble of explaining my thesis. It's up to you to make up your own mind. I am satisfied that I have managed to convince a handful of my readers.

I think they should be grateful that I am teaching them good things for free while physicists get paid to teach their crackpottery to the masses.

Conzar said...

Jim T said...
"Your lunacy is astounding."

Your calling Louis a lunatic.
Wikipedia writes:
"A lunatic is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish, unpredictable,: a condition once called lunacy."

So please provide proof of the medical condition of lunacy, otherwise, keep your slander to yourself.

Kyle said...

Good sir,

I do appreciate your work, especially concerning the COSA operating system. You stand in the right to demand questions, for science is not always obtained purely through mining data... For the system to observe...
Never mind that.

In regards to your above remarks about time i must say that you have my interest, even though i am relatively recent student of physics. I will continue to learn of the methods which are availaible and testable and given in the courses of study, for it is' their pragmatic end which i seek to enjoy.

In light of your work, whatever it may be, let it give movement to the realm of engineering and will it be more then a minor addition?

I study nanotechnology, and when you get down to that realm the idea of signal transduction (mechanical or electronic) becomes... something of a vast world. In that regard i believe that our engineering is not yet effective enough to capitalize on the vast realm of signal transduction within nanoscale structures and their resultant macroscopic agglomeration / state.

jshoo said...

"a clock does not measure the passing of time but temporal intervals."

The word 'temporal' means 'of time' more or less. So, by your comment a clock measures intervals of time. Your statement contradicts itself.

"If a clock slows down, it follows that the measured intervals will be longer than the previous ones."

I think you just defined 'time dilation'.

"Time dilation is not just a misnomer, it is a stupid misnomer simply because time cannot change by definition."

This statement is nonsense.

Regardless of whether or not you think that 'time dilation' is possible, the meaning of the term is clear. It is the right name for something that you think does not exist.

Although we perceive time as a constant we also perceive that the world is flat and that the sky is blue. Our senses alone cannot always perceive a complete understanding of an object or event.

KMnx said...

I think he means more so that time is not continuous.

Each tick of the clock does not have some measure of substance, but it's just a point.

Not really that knowledgeable about quantum physics but it seems that a lot of structures used require a continuous set in order to take form.

Azathoth said...

I'm not going to lie, I was pretty disappointed by this. I'm going to continue reading your articles to get a better sense of what you're trying to say, but at this point all you've done is assert that having a time dimension is nonsense and then make some arguments based on that assertion.

Which, no matter what camp you're in, is pretty bad logic.

Do you have *anything* to offer that convincingly shows the lack of a need for a time dimension? I notice you don't even lend a nod to folks like Julian Barbour.

Azathoth said...

@ KMnx

Actually quantum field theory is a discretization of what would otherwise be 'continuous' field theories. Basic undergraduate-level QM isn't even a field theory, and although strictly speaking the wave function is a continuous mathematical object, that is distinctly different from a discussion about the actual discrete or continuous nature of space, time or space-time.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense to point to QM as supporting the arguments here -- for one, I'm unaware of any physicist that does not acknowledge the irreconcibility of a continuous field theory representation of reality (ie: General Relativity) and a discrete one (QM or QFT), so it's all really sounding like the author here is getting angry about nothing.

But also, in the context of a blog like this one, it is hypocritical to take the *mathematical* irreconcilability of the theories as proof of their *physical* incompatibility, or worse, as a reason to say that one or the other is a "mountain of crap" as far as descriptions of reality go.

Louis Savain said...

"a clock does not measure the passing of time but temporal intervals."

The word 'temporal' means 'of time' more or less. So, by your comment a clock measures intervals of time. Your statement contradicts itself.


No it doesn't. The expression "temporal intervals' in no way contradicts the fact that time does not pass?

"If a clock slows down, it follows that the measured intervals will be longer than the previous ones."

I think you just defined 'time dilation'.


No I didn't. I just shows that clocks can slow down. For time to dilate, it has to be a variable, i.e., it has to change. It doesn't because it can't by definition. I do note that you completely ignored my arguments against changing time and chose instead to make a lame comment to support your ingrained but false assumptions. Good luck.

PS. Don't bother replying because I will reject your comments. Your dishonesty and your cowardice make me feel like throwing up. I don't like your kind.

Louis Savain said...

KMnx:
I think he means more so that time is not continuous.

No. I mean that time does not change, period. So it cannot dilate, i.e., grow larger or longer. That's stupid. A temporal interval is a fixed abstract quantity. It does not change. And clocks only measure intervals.

Why do I say that a temporal interval is an abstract quantity? Simply because it has no physical properties.

Not really that knowledgeable about quantum physics but it seems that a lot of structures used require a continuous set in order to take form.

Both classical and quantum physicists wrongly assume that continuity is a possibility because that is what they are taught and they don't question it. Indeed, they are forbidden to question it.

Physicists go to great superstitious lengths to convince themselves and others that Zeno's so-called paradoxes (they are contradictions really) are refuted by calculus. It's all crap, of course, since Zeno's arguments are irrefutable proofs that continuity is BS.

The truth is that physicists are wallowing in their own excrement. Worst of all is that they like it.

Louis Savain said...

Azathoth:

'm not going to lie, I was pretty disappointed by this. I'm going to continue reading your articles to get a better sense of what you're trying to say, but at this point all you've done is assert that having a time dimension is nonsense and then make some arguments based on that assertion.

Which, no matter what camp you're in, is pretty bad logic.


In that case, you're a goddamn liar since I did certainly explain why the existence of a time dimension is nonsense. Would you care to retract your accusation?

Do you have *anything* to offer that convincingly shows the lack of a need for a time dimension?

Maybe you have trouble with reading comprehension. I am not going to repeat myself here.

I notice you don't even lend a nod to folks like Julian Barbour.

There is a reason. Barbour does not understand time. He believes that the lack of a time dimension means that there is no motion or change in the universe when, in reality, the exact opposite is the truth.

Azathoth said...

Before I continue, let me first say that I'm actually quite interested in challenging the status quo. If you're more concerned with sounding like an asshole than making a good case to challenge the grounds of physics, though, I'm afraid you're just going to lose a potential convert.

And since this is your blog, not mine, I won't embarass you by showing you how to really be a curmudgeonly bastard. ;)

"In that case, you're a goddamn liar since I did certainly explain why the existence of a time dimension is nonsense. Would you care to retract your accusation?"

Not in this article, you didn't, and not anywhere else I've looked thus far. As I said, all you've done is make assertions. Just because you make them with vehemence does not make them convincing. In fact it does the opposite.

I have studied GR at the first-year graduate level -- I'm no expert on the subject but if you have some technical arguments worth making I will probably grasp them.

"Maybe you have trouble with reading comprehension. I am not going to repeat myself here.
"


Actually your comprehension seems to be wanting, here. Whether an argument is convincing or not is not a judgment that can be passed by the arguer -- after all, you're already quite convinced you're correct.

I also won't repeat myself by again saying why you fail to convince, thus far.

"There is a reason. Barbour does not understand time. He believes that the lack of a time dimension means that there is no motion or change in the universe when, in reality, the exact opposite is the truth."

I'm going to agree that Barbour's ideas fail to account for our *perception* of time. I don't know that this means he does not understand time, but frankly that's moot.

I find myself wanting to ask exactly what you define motion to be. Classically, ie: pre-Relativity, time was treated mathematically as a parameter, just an argument to the equations of motion -- philosophically of course it was and is something else entirely. Within the context of Newtonian theories, then, motion is just change with respect to a parameter we choose to call 'time', but is physically, ie: really just a spacing between events we perceive as regular, like the advancement of a watch hand.

So what is motion to you, then? Why is a map from one parameter called 'time' to another parameter called 'time' so objectionable to you?

KMnx said...

So time does not change, it does not pass into new "states" or proceed into new intervals? Yet does it exist? Does it exist as "time" unchanging, as something more then a variable?

I do think that the mathematical foundations which are used to describe a physical model are relevant to the validity of the model as accurate representations of what is taking place. It's absurd to think otherwise. The best example will be in classical physics with it's heavy reliance upon a continuum. In these models we find that predictions can be made that accurately reflect events with a precision that is only limited by our measurements, yet if our measurement devices were infinitely precise to the point where every change in the continuous variables could be related then we would never even get a measurement. We could not see the change because to progress from the null state into the first state requires that a jump is made which is finite. This is not a done deal, even mathematically. How is it that a regular continuous variable only existing in the abstract mathematically domain can even change? I know it might be a bit taboo to speak about this, but right now the answer i hear people give (if they are even willing to consider it at all) is that "it all must happen at once". Thats what set theory says at least... and anyone who ignores that is just dishonoring the foundations of continuum mathematics.

Then again, some would say that we already have devices that measure the continuous nature of certain events, namely analog measures of current flow. However, if we think a bit more about the actual electronics that goes into these systems then we can see that to move from the data acquisition element to the formalized data requires that we take what was measured and make it non continuous, least of course we exhaust the universe's physicality in creating a memory to hold the data. It only gets worse when we try to take analog measure of smaller and smaller systems, whereby you are pretty much reduced to taking the state of some element over a period of time and normalizing it, getting a pseudo "real-time analog" interpretation.

KMnx said...

So time does not change, it does not pass into new "states" or proceed into new intervals? Yet does it exist? Does it exist as "time" unchanging, as something more then a variable?

I do think that the mathematical foundations which are used to describe a physical model are relevant to the validity of the model as accurate representations of what is taking place. It's absurd to think otherwise. The best example will be in classical physics with it's heavy reliance upon a continuum. In these models we find that predictions can be made that accurately reflect events with a precision that is only limited by our measurements, yet if our measurement devices were infinitely precise to the point where every change in the continuous variables could be related then we would never even get a measurement. We could not see the change because to progress from the null state into the first state requires that a jump is made which is finite. This is not a done deal, even mathematically. How is it that a regular continuous variable only existing in the abstract mathematically domain can even change? I know it might be a bit taboo to speak about this, but right now the answer i hear people give (if they are even willing to consider it at all) is that "it all must happen at once". Thats what set theory says at least... and anyone who ignores that is just dishonoring the foundations of continuum mathematics.

KMnx said...

So time does not change, it does not pass into new "states" or proceed into new intervals? Yet does it exist? Does it exist as "time" unchanging, as something more then a variable?

I do think that the mathematical foundations which are used to describe a physical model are relevant to the validity of the model as accurate representations of what is taking place. It's absurd to think otherwise. The best example will be in classical physics with it's heavy reliance upon a continuum. In these models we find that predictions can be made that accurately reflect events with a precision that is only limited by our measurements, yet if our measurement devices were infinitely precise to the point where every change in the continuous variables could be related then we would never even get a measurement. We could not see the change because to progress from the null state into the first state requires that a jump is made which is finite. This is not a done deal, even mathematically. How is it that a regular continuous variable only existing in the abstract mathematically domain can even change? I know it might be a bit taboo to speak about this, but right now the answer i hear people give (if they are even willing to consider it at all) is that "it all must happen at once". Thats what set theory says at least... and anyone who ignores that is just dishonoring the foundations of continuum mathematics.

Then again, some would say that we already have devices that measure the continuous nature of certain events, namely analog measures of current flow. However, if we think a bit more about the actual electronics that goes into these systems then we can see that to move from the data acquisition element to the formalized data requires that we take what was measured and make it non continuous, least of course we exhaust the universe's physicality in creating a memory to hold the data. It only gets worse when we try to take analog measure of smaller and smaller systems, whereby you are pretty much reduced to taking the state of some element over a period of time and normalizing it, getting a pseudo "real-time analog" interpretation.

Azathoth said...

I lost a comment because it was too large. Maybe this is a bad forum for any honest discussion -- but from your attitude I get the impression that you're not terribly interested in doing much besides calling people names.

You'll find me to be open-minded if you cut the bullshit. If you're just interested in ranting to nobody in particular and never being listened to by anyone capable of engaging you, then be my guest.

Anyway -- you don't have anything worth calling even a shadow of a proof in this article. In fact you seem to totally misapprehend the idea of changing time co-ordinates.

From a purely mathematical perspective there is no reason whatever that one cannot go from a parameter called 't' to a parameter called 'tau' when presenting equations of motion, provided one also has a 1:1 map between 't' and 'tau'. GR gives a way to determine such maps.

Putting v = dt/dt is misleading and shows me that you don't even understand the ideas you are railing against. Of *course* that expression is tautological, you set it up to be. "Motion in time" as you put it would be written as d_tau/dt or its inverse, and while I agree that the effects of time-dilation and length contraction are only truly verifiable for the small subset of worldlines that intersect mine twice, nevertheless, it appears that within that subset, things check out.

There are a lot of things to complain about in GR. I know because I've studied it at the graduate level. But I don't see anything of substance here to motivate the vitriole you spew.

I welcome you to convince me otherwise.

Azathoth said...

@ KMnx

No, current is definitely not continuous. The average electronics hobbyist just isn't likely to have an instrument that is sensitive enough to measure the magnetic field oscillations that occur as a result of discrete charges passing through its loop.

hudaksr said...

The author is correct that there can be no motion through the 4-dimensional space-time. The entire reason for the 4th dimension is to encapsulate the motion through the other 3 dimensions that we perceive. Thus there's no motion left over to describe that we actually observe.

However, it may be possible to perceive motion through 3 dimensions as an individual, while in reality being a string of static 3-D beings that are located close to each other in 4-D space-time.

The variations and contortions of the time dimension would interfere with the motion that two separate beings may discuss with each other and this is observed as time dilation, etc.

This is one counter-example to your non-motion argument that fits with theory/observation.

Unknown said...

Salve a Tutti,
il mio amico Robert Otey, mi ha linkato sui vostri post. Dato che sono italiano, credo giusto scrivere nella mia lingua, anche a rischio di obbligare Voi tutti a trovare la traduzione :-) Del resto è un sacrificio che faccio io per leggervi :-)
Se posso permettermi, pur condividendo le vostre affermazioni sulle teorie di Einstein che, appunto, sono sempre e solo teorie, trovo stucchevole che Gente come Voi: attenti e intelligenti, abbiate tempo per disperdere le Vostre energie e cognizioni, in questa assurda disputa!!!!!!
Non occorre alcuna laurea per comprendere che il "tempo" non è "un fattore utile" per una teoria matematica, ma solo una "scala periodica" su cui "misurare" l'evoluzione di un fenomeno naturale o artificiale che sia.
Di fatto, impostando come dato principale il "tempo", non si arriva a nessuna conclusione. Il tempo, vale a dire la misurazione di un ciclo, è relativo alla geografia, alla chimica, alla biologia... Nel caso dei cicli di rotazione, rivoluzione e traslazione del nostro pianeta, la misurazione del tempo assume il valore fondamentale, per poter stabilire le coordinate geografiche e/o astrofisiche. Vale a dire che, avendo le coordinate geografiche/astronomiche, avendo misurato i cicli, possiamo stabilire esattamente quale è la nostra posizione attuale e quale sarebbe quella tra un certo tempo futuro, piuttosto che passato. La domanda capziosa, ci induce a ragionare sul senso di questa complicata misurazione "spazio-temporale". Ebbene, tale misurazione venne introdotta qualche migliaia di anni fa (15-18.000) per poter stabilire il miglior "contatto/ricezione", non già con una entità aliena, bensì con il "punto di origine" di quella frequenza vibratoria (verbo) che tutto anima e sostiene, nell'universo materiale e tridimensionale. Tesla lo aveva capito, definendola "Energia dell'Etere", riuscendo in qualche modo e con qualche artificio, a sfruttarla. Cari Amici, se posso permettermi, vorrei esortarvi a concentravi sul presente e su ciò che siamo in grado di fare, senza disperdere le nostre energie nella critica su ciò che è stato e su ciò che i politicanti "hanno fatto".
Del resto tutto il mondo è paese: se non sei stupido, non puoi pretendere di diventare un Presidente.
Cono
www.obitech.it

Tarmo Kaldma said...

I computer science there is notion of discrete time. Just ticks nothing between, but these tics are ordered, just like natural numbers. Then there is branching time. The row of tics branches into several and tics in different branches cannot be ordered. But tics in one branch are still perfectly ordered. And finally comes "Real time". It happens when different branches are occasionally synchronized (common tick is inserted into them) forming a big net. Inside this net it is possible to measure distances (in tics!) almost like in continuous space. And it is more convenient to use real numbers here, that is not exact but makes math simpler. That is the way our "Real" and "Universal" time is really made. But what are the tics? There is only one measure of time, which is the distance traveled by light. The space is also discrete of course and made in similar way. And there is only one measure of distance, that is the time it takes for light to travel it. It really is circular!