Tuesday, June 8, 2010

How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies

Abstract

In the last one hundred years, there has been a veritable cult surrounding Albert Einstein. Not a day goes by without someone praising Einstein as the greatest scientist that ever lived. Schools, avenues, parks, hospitals, holidays are named in Einstein's honor. So it should come as no surprise that watching someone like me heap scorn and ridicule on Einstein's physics should fill his followers with righteous rage. As a rebel at heart, I find it rather amusing and I admit that I enjoy it. So, it is with great pleasure that I continue with yet another one of my Einstein-bashing articles.

Bringing Down Einstein's Castle in the Air

Einstein once wrote to a friend, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

There is no doubt that a discrete universe would bring Einstein's physics down. That the universe is discrete is beyond argumentation and only an inveterate ass kisser would insist that continuity is a logical concept. Heck, it is not even a scientific concept in the Popperian sense since it cannot be empirically falsified by definition. Leave it to gutless physicists to demand falsifiability from such 'strawman' adversaries as astrologers and psychics while conveniently excusing themselves from the same rule. However, there is another way to falsify Einstein's voodoo physics that is much more direct and impervious to bullshit and lame arguments in support of continuity. It is very simple.

One of the requirements of Einstein's physics is the existence of a time dimension. The only problem with that is that a time dimension makes motion impossible. This is something I have written about many times but it bears repeating over and over because it invariably takes Einstein's defenders by surprise. I like this argument, not because it is enough to convince them of the stupidity of Einstein's physics but because it is fun to watch the ass kissers morph into babbling fools, foaming at the mouth and jumping up and down. (See Nothing Can Move in Spacetime)

What Will It Take to Destroy Einstein's Physics?

Don't count on physicists to clean up their act. It's not going to happen. The scientific community is like an incestuous gang; they view the rest of the world as their prey and enemy. They take the public's money while, at the same time, forbidding the public the right of oversight on their business. Somehow, they've managed to convince the public that they are too stupid to understand science. Their arrogance and pompous condescension are legendary.

Only the lay public can bring enough pressure on the powers that be to bring an end to a century of stupidity and what amounts to a wild goose chase. I think it is time that the public reverses the table on them and show that scientists can be just as stupid as everyone else. In fact, their stupidity is all the more glaring since they pride themselves on being smarter than everyone else. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."

Addendum

Here are a few quotes from knowledgeable people regarding the impossibility of motion or change in Einstein's spacetime:
"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle."
Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
"According to Einstein's doctrine the world is a finite four dimensional sphere full with force-lines. No motion is possible in it since time is one of its geometrical dimensions, and there is no external time."
Source: Methodologia (pdf) by Dr. Uri Fidelman.
"What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming."
Source: "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?" Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994 by Professor Joe Rosen
"At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation."
Source: Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper. Emphasis added.
See Also:

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

18 comments:

Jim T said...

Meh, was hoping for a new argument, or an experiment, you know, something tangible.

JV said...

That the universe is discrete is beyond argumentation and only an inveterate ass kisser would insist that continuity is a logical concept.

so why aren't you going about proving this? and getting published? and showing how people are wrong?

Louis Savain said...

Jim, the old arguments are just as solid and important as ever. Sorry to bore you but there are a lot of people out there who are under the illusion that Einstein's physics is resting on solid ground. You may already know and understand that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime but the vast majority of people, including physicists, are unaware of it. The truth must be told.

PS. The experiment you're waiting for will come in due time. But that should not keep you from seeing the fallacy of the spacetime concept.

Louis Savain said...

JV,

so why aren't you going about proving this? and getting published? and showing how people are wrong?

Are you kidding me? This is exactly what I have been doing on my blog. Continuity requires infinity and infinity can be easily proven to be a stupid concept. I have done so elsewhere on this blog. Look for it if you're interested.

PS. My goal is to educate the lay public. Scientists, especially physicists, can kiss my ass. If that bothers you, go read someone else's blog.

stereox112 said...

@ Louis Savain:
I believe that Einstein is wrong too. As a matter of fact, I believe that you're wrong as well.
Our universe is clearly filled with tiny naked leperchauns wearing nothing but yellow top hats. They push the electrons around in double slits experiments just to mess with us people.

If you don't believe me than you're no better than the rest of the chicken shit voodoo physicists community.

Also, I offer no testable prediction of my leprechauan hypotesis, because it's obviously true and therefore doesn't require testing.

Louis Savain said...

stereox112,

You're a gutless asshole and you know it. If you had any cojones, you would identify yourself. Normally, I would not allow a stupid comment like yours to appear on my blog. But, for whatever reason, I feel the need to rub your nose in your own shit. Believe me, I have seen your kind before.

First of all, one does not have to provide a replacement theory in order to criticize another. Also, a scientific theory is more than just about making predictions (hell, my dog makes predictions all the time). It is also about having a good hypothesis. The latter must make logical sense.

Einstein's spacetime hypothesis makes not sense whatsoever because, among other things, it forbids motion (deny this if you are an idiot). So his hypothesis is falsified right out of the goddamn gate.

Second, as far as my own predictions are concerned, I did not offer a theory yet. I am still working on it. Still, with the little that I've already figured out, I can make two predictions that squarely contradicts Einstein's GR. I predict there are no such thing as gravity waves and that gravity is an instantaneous non-local phenomenon. You can falsify my prediction by setting up an experiment to prove that gravity travels at a given speed or by detecting gravity waves.

PS. Now stop being a fucking asshole and go read somebody else's blog. I don't need your stupid crap. And don't even bother writing a reply because I will reject it. LOL.

Sean said...

What experimentation exists that proves time travel? Not mathematical experiments or nice-looking equations, but real tangible science. According to math I can't divide anything into three even parts using decimals, but I can with fractions. So put the math models away and give me something real. Or as an alternative, show through logical argument that time travel simply must be true. Louis, and others in the community, seem to have a strong logical argument for the fallacy of time travel, all other ideas aside for the moment. Not on board with "seraphim" concept and others presented here? That's ok, let's just take one thing at a time. Pythagoras believed that numbers were separate tangible entities, he was wrong, but that doesn't mean he really didn't know how to figure out the length of that third side of the triangle.

Anyone? Seriously, I love all the skepticism but let's all be on the same team for a moment and try to find some truth.

Logical argument or physical evidence for time travel....go!

Louis Savain said...

Sean,

My argument (and it's not just mine, mind you) against time travel and the illogic of spacetime is not just strong, it is irrefutable. So there is really no need to continue arguing about it.

JV said...

louis,

it doesn't bother me that you have thoughts and that you are writing your own blog espousing those thoughts. but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to do what other serious scientists do, get published in respected journals. until you do that, you're just some guy with a blog.

you can sit there and call any number of people idiots for not believing you, which you do frequently all over the internet. but until you prove it with experiments, etc., you're the nut job, not them.

just telling you what you should already know.

Louis Savain said...

JV,

I don't believe in the peer review process. Physics is in a sorry state precisely because of the peer review process. Peer review is synonymous with ass review in my opinion. So why would I want to publish my ideas in your so-called "respected" journals? I despise them and I refuse to take part in their political (i.e., ass-kissing) shenanigans.

just telling you what you should already know.

Yes, I know that I am a nut job in the eyes of the scientific community but that suits me just fine. In fact, as a rebel, I like it that way. My eventual vindication and triumph will be all the more sweeter.

JV said...

maybe you just don't understand peer review. it's really only a basic check on the validity of the claim. that's all it's meant for. after that, it's up to the validity of your theory and evidence and independent testing to carry the day. any number of people can say any number of things, but without a testable theory, it doesn't mean anything. again, you're just some guy, "rebel" if you will, just making statements that can't be disproved or proved for that matter.

eventual vindication? never going to happen with your attitude. why do you hate people so much? if you've got something that's so awesome, why not try to get it out there? and don't tell me about your blog. your blog insults people regularly. with that attitude, your "theory" is going nowhere.

i hope you try to get published! best of luck to you!

Louis Savain said...

JV,

maybe you just don't understand peer review. it's really only a basic check on the validity of the claim. that's all it's meant for. after that, it's up to the validity of your theory and evidence and independent testing to carry the day. any number of people can say any number of things, but without a testable theory, it doesn't mean anything.

I think you're the one who does not understand the peer review process. It is routinely used as a mechanism to filter out viewpoints that do not conform to the accepted paradigm. Haven't you read Thomas Kuhn's treatise on scientific revolutions?

For example, there is a simple logical refutation of infinity that would bring down Einstein's "castle in the air", as he called it. Do you think a paper that does this will ever pass peer review in a major journal? I can assure you that it is not going to happen.

again, you're just some guy, "rebel" if you will, just making statements that can't be disproved or proved for that matter.

Again, I disagree. There is such a thing as a logical proof that can be stated in a simple language that anybody can understand. Plenty of papers are published every day that propose no experiments or falsification methods or even a hypothesis. Just a bunch of talk to support the prevailing paradigm. This is especially true of the soft sciences like evolutionary biology. But it is also true of physics and astronomy. Heck, some papers are published that add nothing whatsoever to knowledge and some even make no sense at all, as long as they appear to toe the party line with the right catch phrases sprinkled here and there. Remember Sokal?

eventual vindication? never going to happen with your attitude. why do you hate people so much? if you've got something that's so awesome, why not try to get it out there? and don't tell me about your blog. your blog insults people regularly. with that attitude, your "theory" is going nowhere.

Again, you are wrong about my motive and my goal. My goal is not to be vindicated in the eyes of the scientific establishment. I insult them because I despise their hypocrisy, their blatant BS and their dishonest politics. I neither need nor seek their approval because they have no honor in my eyes. When the time comes, they will be discredited and they will lose their position in society. My message is not to them.

Sean said...

A published journal is really the gateway to validity, or is it just the gateway to acceptance? I would have thought that an idea could stand on it's own merits whether it's in a blog post or a published journal or scrawled on a men's room wall. I don't understand the thinking. And my challenge from before still stands, to JV and anyone else. Provide a logical proof or physical (not purely mathematical) evidence for the possibility of time travel. If Louis's logical argument isn't good enough and evidence is demanded, why not follow the same standard?

Can anyone site an experiment whose results can ONLY be explained by time travel, warped space, superstrings or other theories that this blog owner regards as crackpottery?

Anyone? Bueller?

JV said...

@louis: you make a ridiculous number of unsupported statements in all your papers. and if anyone disagrees, then they're . why do you hate people so much? it seems to me you've built this ridiculous straw man (computer or physics scientists, aka assholes, playing politics to protect their supposed position, or whatever). really? supposed position doing what? making experiments? teaching in universities? are you really going to try to tell the world that there is a conspiracy of "scientists" out there hell-bent on protecting their "position" in the world? i know someone that publishes in scientific journals. as you've already mentioned, it doesn't take much to get published. there is no ass kissing at all. she submits her paper after doing the research, it gets published. sometimes the journal board sends back the document for revisions or clarifications. that's pretty much it. if your idea is worthy, get it out there. let the world see it. research and support your points with tests, experiments, etc. let others try to do the same, independently of your research. this is how it works.

Louis Savain said...

JV:

you make a ridiculous number of unsupported statements in all your papers.

And I am supposed to take your word for it? Do you have a monopoly on honesty that everyone should have known about? Name them and show why they are unsupported. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass as far as I am concerned.

and if anyone disagrees, then they're . why do you hate people so much?

I don't hate people. On the contrary, I love people from all walks of life. I am just angry at the BS mentality of our so-called leaders and their followers. Unless we, as a species, drastically change our ways and soon, we are rapidly headed toward a global disaster of Biblical proportions. We are fucking up big time, on an unprecedented scale, and we need to wake the fuck up.

it seems to me you've built this ridiculous straw man (computer or physics scientists, aka assholes, playing politics to protect their supposed position, or whatever). really?

Absolutely. Your argument is chicken shit. Everybody out there is tainted because they have conflicts of interest that get in the way of good behavior and honest intentions. The current economic and political systems encourage it.

supposed position doing what? making experiments? teaching in universities? are you really going to try to tell the world that there is a conspiracy of "scientists" out there hell-bent on protecting their "position" in the world?

Not at all. I am trying to tell the world that those who are entrusted to create our knowledge for us are full of shit. No need for a conspiracy. There is just a cowardly desire on the part of many to kiss ass in order to improve or hold on to their careers. People act in their self interest.

Besides, accusing someone of being a conspiracy theorist is a stupid argument because it does not prove that person wrong. What if his conspiracy argument is correct and you're wrong? This sort of argument is crap and is a favorite of ass kissers. You are a perfect example of a gutless ass kisser from my perspective.

i know someone that publishes in scientific journals. as you've already mentioned, it doesn't take much to get published. there is no ass kissing at all. she submits her paper after doing the research, it gets published. sometimes the journal board sends back the document for revisions or clarifications. that's pretty much it. if your idea is worthy, get it out there. let the world see it.

And what is wrong with my blog, pray tell? I strongly rebel against the notion that someone's ideas are more valuable if they are published in some journal. The crap that is published in journals could fill an ocean. In my opinion, the very fact that they are published in a journal makes them suspect because every journal has a hidden agenda that is enforced through biased selection and censorship.

If I devise a set of experiments to support a hypothesis (e.g., my lattice propulsion hypothesis), the last place I want to publish them is a elitist scientific journal. I will publish them right here on my blog so that anybody can replicate them. I like my freedom. I said it before. I do not need nor seek the approval of the scientific community. If my shit is good, it will speak for itself with or without them. I cannot stand elitism especially the pompous elitism of scientists. What makes them better, more honest or smarter than the rest of humanity? They are not.

There are plenty of smart people out there. They are my reviewers. They don't decide whether or not I am published. They decide whether or not to accept my ideas. That is all. I don't believe in any form of censorship or filtering mechanism.

The Thought said...

uhhh. Einstein explained the nature of matter with only 5 characters (E=mc2). You just tried to rebuked all his mathematics in a poorly written (and obviously spiteful) blog post in which you didn't even venture to use one number or equation. And while Karl Popper is held in high regard amongst similarly highly regarded scientists, his attempt to circumscribe science through falsifiability has itself been falsified (NAMELY because of the ease by which people like you can apply it to several amazing discoveries and theories and disarm them without struggle).

BrandonD said...

I'm digging your blog, IMO the world can never have too many intelligent iconoclasts.

Especially in contemporary western society, the low point of human culture.

-B

Russ Smith said...

Time "travel" and therefore "time dilation" are intrinsically idiotic ideas, especially "relativistic" time distortions: unless you postulate that an object can exist at more than 1 point in time concurrently then when an object "moves" into the future, or the past, it would have to disappear in the present – which is observably not the case!
The most stupid concept from E is that "relative" velocity could produce such effects; relative velocity may be positive in relation to one object, and negative in relation to another (even if the relative velocity of the 2 observers is zero), so does this object move forward, or backward in time? Or, perhaps to have our cake and eat it again, it does both at once?
Satellite / orbiting atomic clock discrepancies are far more easily explained as a change in atomic rate of decay due to gravitational intensity. I.e. it is not the satellite's velocity, but rather, its altitude (and reduced gravity) that can account for these discrepancies. We have already observed that gravity bends light, and seems very probable that it would also affect atomic decay half-life (as confirmed by orbiting clocks!). How can time dilation due to relative velocity of an object that a circling the point of observation accumulate? A satellite’s average relative velocity would be zero relative such an observer, and hence, the average (accumulated) time dilation should also tend to zero, but this is not what is observed with orbiting atomic clocks!