Saturday, April 24, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part III

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In Part II, I said that Einstein's physics is crap because it calls for the existence of continuity, a pseudoscientific concept. I argued that continuous structures lead to an infinite regress. This is so obvious that it boggles the mind that physicists can be so stupid. In this post I explain why the incessant mantra in the relativist community that there is only relative motion and position in the universe is so easy to refute that even children will understand it.

The Crackpottery of Relativity

We have all been taught by relativists that there is no such thing as absolute motion or position or that every motion and position in the universe are relative. This unsubstantiated belief, which I will call relativity for simplicity's sake, has been around for centuries, even before the advent of Albert Einstein and his spacetime theories. It was not until early in the twentieth century, however, that relativity became in vogue. Nowadays most physicists consider the concept of absolute motion to be no more credible than the flat earth. I originally wrote three proofs to show that relativity is bogus. I have since decided that it's an overkill. One proof is enough.

Amazingly Simple Proof That Relativity Is Bogus

If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. Since every position is relative to every other position, the system is self-referential. That's it. As simple as that. Since relativists like to talk in terms of frames of reference, you can replace 'position' above with 'frame of reference', if you wish. Relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort of silliness we have to believe in if we accept relativity.

The Nasty Little Truth

The nasty little truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what we have been taught to believe. The only type of motion or position in the universe is absolute. The relative is abstract and dependent on the absolute. Relativity is part of what I have been calling chicken feather voodoo physics, because if we subscribe to it, we have to believe that things happen as if by magic.

The Relativist's Objection

Relativists will immediately retort that if it cannot be measured or observed, it does not exist. Never mind for now that physics is bloated with concepts and models (time dimension, spacetime, curled up dimensions, etc...) that are impossible to test empirically.

First of all, it is a misconception that we measure the relative directly. We perceive only absolute sensations (such as photons impinging on the light detectors in the retina) and we may interpret them as meaning that object A is moving relative to body B. Sure, it's a logical and sensible interpretation but it is an indirect one nonetheless. It must be inferred.

Second, a truth that can be deduced logically is just as valid as a truth that can be experienced first hand. Is it not more beneficial to know the fundamental truth of absolute motion than it is to bury one's head in the sand and act as if it did not exist? Which is better, ignorance or knowledge? And who knows what new insights will come out of it?

Absolute Space?

Does this mean that one should believe in an absolute space or reference frame à la Newton? Absolutely not. In the physical universe there exist only particles, their properties and their interactions. Since all properties are intrinsic to particles, they are therefore absolute (independent) by virtue of being intrinsic. Besides, the absolute does not need a reference frame to be relative to. That is the definition of the relative. Absolute means independent. In an upcoming article, I will explain why space (distance) is a perceptual illusion.

Conclusion

It should be obvious that Einstein's physics is not physics at all. It is just a bunch of equations for predicting the motion of particles. As such, like Newtonian physics before it, it explains nothing. It is no better in this regard than Ptolemaic epicycles. That would not be such a bad thing but what really turned Einstein's physics into total crap is all the bullshit claims that relativists (including Einstein) have made and continue to make on its behalf. Using a mathematical formula for the prediction of motion in order to conjure up voodoo crap like wormholes, black holes, big bangs and time travel is the ultimate form of crackpottery.

What is truly amazing about Einstein's physics is the ease with which it can be demolished. The crackpottery is blatant and in your face. So why did it last so long and why is it still a scientific theory? I can only think of two reasons. First, physicists are, for the most part, a bunch of gutless cowards and ass kissers who go along with the flow for fear of being ostracized. Second, somehow the physics community has managed to convince the average lay person into believing that he or she is too stupid to understand physics. This is not unlike the way the priests and wizards of old used to bullshit the people. I think it's time for the public to wake up and realize that it has been duped. I think it is time for the public to rise up and demand to know why their money is being spent on pseudoscientific crap. It's time to fire the crackpots and the pretenders.

See Also:

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

2 comments:

Azathoth said...

"It should be obvious that Einstein's physics is not physics at all. It is just a bunch of equations for predicting the motion of particles."

You don't say.

"So why did it last so long and why is it still a scientific theory?"

See above.

I'm not against the notions you want to express in this blog, but you seem to have confused Einstein's physics with the popular *interpretations* of Einstein's physics.

You also seem to think that equations must inherently contain explanations, and that just isn't so.

Louis Savain said...

Azathoth: I'm not against the notions you want to express in this blog, but you seem to have confused Einstein's physics with the popular *interpretations* of Einstein's physics.

You mean that when Einstein and the relativists teach that spacetime exists and that bodies follow their trajectories in spacetime, they were lying? Why lie to the people? That's insulting.

Besides, the little con artist in the wheelchair, one of the world's foremost experts in Einstein's physics, certainly teaches others to believe in the existence of a time dimension in which we are moving in one direction or another. When he claims that general relativity does not forbid time travel, is he popularizing for the rest of us morons or is he just bullshitting the people as he usually does? The elitist condescension that seems to permeate the physics community is truly sickening.

You also seem to think that equations must inherently contain explanations, and that just isn't so.

On the contrary, I rebel precisely against the mindset that permeates the physics community, the one that assumes that equations can explain anything or that one cannot understand physics unless one understands math.