Thursday, May 13, 2010

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap, Part I (repost)

[My recent three-part article on the crappiness of Einstein's physics pissed off a lot of people. I think that's cool. So I am reposting it over the next three days. I will add a follow-up article to illustrate how detrimental Einstein's physics has been to our understanding of nature.]

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:

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense

12 comments:

Canticle said...

Ah but we KNOW SR is right because we have evidence! I was in a plane a while ago and concorde flew by the other way. Along her side was an optic tube, and a light pulse went up it from tail to nose. Sure enough it contracted so as not appear to exceed 'c', which meant the front bit was ripped from the cockpit, which suffered explosive decompression. Hell of a mess!

Just like current physics really.

The problem is to find the real problem. It's actually that we CAN see the change of position of a pulse apparently going faster than 'c', as the information we get is NOT that contained in the wave front itself. So M87 is NOT an illusion after all.

Criticism of SR is easy, (as it's crap), but we need the real correction to stand any chance of repalcing it. Anyone up for some proper science?

PJ

Louis Savain said...

Canticle,

My argument is against Einstein's physics, not the narrow mathematical predictions of GR or SR. Predictions are a dime a dozen. Even Ptolemaic epicycles can be made to be as accurate as needed, even if there is no real physics behind the calculations.

SR's and GR's predictions may be correct to a certain extent but their correctness is not a vindication of Einstein's *physics*. The latter has to do with crap like the physical existence of continuous structures, the physical geometry of spacetime and the notion that all positions and movements in the universe are relative. This stuff is just a pile of bullshit.

Let me add that physicists only pretend to use continuity in their equations. Don't you believe it. There is nothing more discrete than calculus, a billion mathematicians jumping up and down and protesting to the contrary notwithstanding. In fact, we use the ultimate discrete calculator, the digital computer, to calculate all sorts of supposedly continuous functions. Go figure.

Louis Savain said...

Canticle,

Let me add that the first step in finding a replacement for Einstein's crackpot physics is to gain a true understanding of motion.

smhhms said...

I agree that continuity is nonsensical if it is defined as 'infinite divisibility'. This term is a fiction that stems from the way we deal with lenght, volume etc. "quantitatively". The statment that a length is 3 m is a useful fiction, according to which the length comprises three segments each of length 1 m. This is by analogy with the concept of three separate objects. The actual space that is necessary for a length to exist (whatever the distrubition of matter within it) is continuous, in the sense that it has no gaps. If there were gaps, how would separated regions of space be joined? ... is there space between separate regions of space? (absurd).

Dr. Bolman said...

The more I dig , the more evidence I see that GR theory is not quiet right. From the fact that aether theories predictions are the same as GR's because of Poincare(yet they were abandoned for GR seemingly on a whim)- I'm not trying to say aether theory is correct, just that there isn't an Occam's razor argument when you replace one theory with another theory that both make "equal" predictions. This for me was the start of my journey to investigate GR.

It seems when you really examine Einsteins equations, some of the arguments really boil down to logical paradoxes and how you interpret equations and what kinds of assumptions are being made. Then when paradoxes are introduced from the math, patches are made for those paradoxes (time dilation)- problem is these "patches" aren't phenomological, it isn't a simple "numerical correction", they are applied to the entire universe as a whole and said to be a governing equation of reality itself.

In engineering, we don't do this. At least we aren't pretentious enough to pretend that our "patches" aren't just "patches", which is what Einstein is doing.

Then you come to stuff like Gravitational lensing and the very scant evidence to show its validity (under close examination, not simply taking so and so's word for it when looking at the so called "Einstein cross") and you come to realize- something's not quiet right with GR theory.

I personally believe all of physics can be described in phase-space models with Laplacian or Hamiltonian mechanics (whichever is convenient to the problem at hand), which is what we basically do in engineering anyways.

FACTSANDFACTS said...

The education system seems to keep people confused since most physicists are teaching it incorrectly. They describe the bizarre effects of Special Relativity, yet they do not reveal the absolute foundation that creates these relativistic outcomes. Once you see the absolute cause, it all becomes very simple to understand.

If you perform a purely logical analysis of "MOTION", you eventually understand Special Relativity and you also create all of its equations. No education in physics is required to do so, other than taking into account the fact that light is the fastest speed possible.

Proof of this simple and effective motion analysis is shown in just ( 1 1/2 hours ) via 9 short videos. Watch the 9 videos at http://goo.gl/fz4R0I .

Due to my unique but unappreciated way of thinking, my parents had pulled me out of school, and had done so before I had a chance to acquire any education in the field of physics.

Thus the way in which I eventually understood Special Relativity, and derived all of the SR equations, is unique to the world. But the point is, if you just perform a simple analysis of motion, this takes you step by step to eventually acquiring a full understanding of SR.

kyle said...

Let's start by insisting there is no such thing as time. There isn only space and mass. What we perceive to be time is even intervals of movement relative to exact position in space.

kyle said...

What do you mean when you say light is the fastest speed possible. Do you mean nothing else moves faster ?

Unknown said...

I also dont beleieve einstein crap of space time. If we just have one single clock to measure all events, then it's the same time for all events. Having multiple clocks to measure individual events may result in time difference, which may be for any reason, which I don't care. The reason I don't care is the same reason why objects fall to earth within some distance from earth and beyond that distance they float.

Ahnerd Whoisdull said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ahnerd Whoisdull said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fayaz Tahir said...

For all your Relativity, Inertia and Gravitation needs please have a look at the cover page of my ebook published by Amazon, titled,Natural theory of Relativity, Inertia and Gravitation." Thanks.