Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Common Sense vs. Einsteinianity

edited December 2014 in General Science
Credulity and suggestibility of human mind is absolutely mind boggling. The most amazing thing about it is that the more educated a person is the more susceptible his mind to manipulation. Perhaps, that’s the nature of the sordid education system that prevailed today on global scale.

After 20 years of living in the USA I went back to my country of birth – Russia. Every day I observe how the events in Ukraine are presented in the Western media. The impression I get is that the creators of these “news” truly believe that simply by lying in the most primitive and audacious way one can create reality. Sadly, that is true in a certain sense: majority of people – due to their seemingly incurable credulity and suggestibility – believe and behave just the way the manipulators want them to.

We literally live in the Orwellian world today, and the triumph of Einsteinianity is a crown jewel shining like a crazy diamond on the pinnacle of the world gone insane.

In this discussion thread I suggest we address squarely, openly, without mincing words the worst thing that ever happened to science - insanity in the form of Einsteinianity.

Is it an innocent and momentary lapse of reason, a voluntary self-delusion of scientists, or rather a well-thought out coercion, a mind straitjacket, imposed deliberately and systematically upon, not only scientists, but all of us?
«1

Comments

  • edited December 2014
    In the words of George Trinkaus, a physicist who studied closely Tesla's patents and wrote number of books on Tesla Technology:
    Tesla had no good words for Einstein’s hallowed theory of relativity, which he called "a mass of errors and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense." Einstein "wraps all these errors and fallacies in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors." The theory's exponents, he said, are "metaphysicians, not scientists". He said "Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

    "He described relativity as a 'beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.' In support of his statement he cited a number of experiments he had conducted as far back as 1896 on the cosmic ray. He has measured cosmic-ray velocities from Antarus, he said, which he found to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing, he contended, one of the basic pillars of relativity, according to which there can be no speed greater than that of light.”
    -- New York Times, 7/11/35.
  • edited December 2014
    Thanks Barau for open this thread.
    Since I have no clue yet as to the meaning of your words, I will wait to hear from you some
    more specific thoughts on this subject. I agree with you that today's media have a large influence
    over whoever is exposed to and the reporting is directed in a very specific way that suppose to
    infect the viewers / audience.

    Guess you like the Pink Floyd "shine on you like a crazy diamond"....
  • edited December 2014
    My point of view is a bit more mild than yours.

    From my perspective Tesla was a genius but much less than some people admiring him,
    since he was led by his curiosity and vanity which drove him to invent more than investigating
    and exploring nature. He definitely was an active part of this crazy race of the technological
    revolution. He was a genius, no doubt and his contribution to our life is great, his findings are
    mind opening and there is a lot to learn from him, but needles to say - he was not on target,
    so to speak in regard to the building blocks of the universe rather he was "Tech Addict" which
    could not stop inventing.

    Einstein on the other hand also have ups and downs. On the personal level I like him, his
    sense of humor, his thoughts against any type of violence in our world, his opinions about
    cultural, social and scientific are bright, simple and very elegant. So I have no problem with
    his personality.

    On the professional matters, his private and general relativity I have a lot to say (in the next
    posts), but I don't think he was trying to deceive someone, to steal people opinions or to
    mislead scientists or the physics world, but he truly believe in what he was doing, thinking
    and how he translated nature into math. Both private and general relativity have proven
    predictions and experiments which worked accordingly, so I would not demolish the whole
    house if I don't like the furniture....

    Einstein was a bright genius with magnetic personality, but I think his relativity, speed of
    light and related ideas were an attempt to bypass Maxwellian thoughts and not to deal at all
    with the small details and the mechanical nature of matter, energy, gravity, electricity,
    magnetism, atom, nuclear, waves and in general "to get his hands dirty" with reality.

    Again, I don't blame Albert Einstein by doing more wrong than other scientists. I have a list
    of physicists that I like due to their honest attempts, curiosity and efforts which they dedicated
    their lives for (even though I don't agree with most of what they discovered), but I learn a lot
    from them, from their ideas and open minded approach. This list includes : Leonardo Da Vinci,
    Galileo Galilei, William Gilbert, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Hans
    Christian Oersted, Heinrich Hertz, James Maxwell, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac
    and Ed Leedskalnin.

    I also have a "black list" of scientists which cause more confusion than clarity, this one
    include : Charles Coulomb, Andre Marie Ampere, J.J. Thompson, Oliver Heaviside, Michelson-
    Morley.

    Maybe I forgot a few and many others which I have not investigated thoroughly enough,
    but Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla are only part of this culture.

    Now let's get down to the details of Einstein ideas.
  • edited December 2014
    Tesla said "Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

    But what about E=MC^2? – one may ask. Tesla died in 1943, i.e. before the atomic bomb was built, tested and used. Isn't it true that, at least, this proposition has been proved conclusively by what we know today of Binding Energy and Mass Defect?

    Let's not rush to hasty conclusions, let's do some plausible reasoning instead.

    For starters, it is important to note that equality and equivalence are different notions altogether. Next, the equation E=MC^2, according to the Einstein interpretation of it, implies mass-energy equivalence in the sense that mass can be converted, at least in principle, to pure energy, and vice versa. But pure energy is pure nonsense – just like the smile left behind by dissolved in a haze Cheshire Cat – for mass is the only bearer of energy. The so-called fields – electromagnetic, gravitational, etc. – are nothing but fine-grained substances at unimaginably small hierarchical scales of fractal structure of matter, in other words, they are nothing but unponderable mass. For all we know, eddy knots of this fine-grained substance (mass density of which is so small that it is beyond our perception and ability to measure directly) could be swirling and flying around at speeds orders of magnitude higher than that of light, resulting in high energy density despite extremely low mass density.

    Meanwhile, as we show next, equation E=MC^2 has a very simple mechanical interpretation suggested by common sense. Indeed, following S. Banach, who once famously remarked "good mathematicians see analogies between theorems; great mathematicians see analogies between analogies", let us draw on the analogy between luminiferous aether and the ordinary air. Notwithstanding the significant differences in their physical characteristics, both are mediums of substance. Acoustical effect is manifest in both: in the air we call it sound, and in the luminiferous aether – light. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the formula for the speed of propagation of acoustical waves in the air, on the one hand, and in the aether, on the other, ought to be somewhat similar.

    The formula for the speed of sound, C =√(dp/dρ), was derived for the first time by Newton. It was refined by Laplace to account for about 15% discrepancy with experimentally determined speed of sound (see: The Speed of Sound), but for our purposes Newton’s formula will do just fine. Now, introduce some small and fixed volume V of space, and watch how the potential energy E of compressed air in that volume, as well as the mass M of air in it, is varying in the process of acoustical wave propagation: ΔЕ = Vdр, ΔМ = Vdρ.

    We have now C =√(dp/dρ)=√(Vdp/Vdρ)=√(ΔЕ/ΔМ), i.e. ΔЕ=ΔМC^2.

    It should be clear by now that E=MC^2 is basically nothing but the equivalent of Newton’s formula for the speed of acoustical wave propagation applied to luminiferous aether.

    No pious mysticism, no nonsense, no scientific gobbledygook, only simple physical interpretation based on an analogy suggested by common sense!
  • Interesting synchronicity. I just happened to be reading this Tesla interview today:

    http://www.freedomtek.org/en/texts/nikola_tesla_interview_1899.php
    Numbers and equations are signs that mark the music of the spheres. If Einstein had heard these sounds, he would not create theories of relativity.
  • edited December 2014
    PrisonerX,

    This interview you are referring to sounds like a fake to me. Tesla was eloquent in English (and few other languages as well), and it is entirely doubtful that he would phrase his answers in such imprecise, mystical, illiterate language.

    Compare it to real Tesla:
    From time to time, in rare intervals, Great Spirit of discovery down to Earth to announce a secret that should improve humanity. It (Great Spirit) selects the best prepared and most honorable, and whispers a secret to his ear. Valuable knowledge comes like a flash of light. When he understands its hidden meaning, he (the chosen one) is happy to see a miraculous change: a new World appears in front of his eyes, barely hints at similarity with the old one. This is not a passing illusion, a mere game of his imagination, or phantom of the mist that will clear. The miracles he sees, no matter how far away they seem to be, will remain here. Then He knows, with no shadow of doubt in his mind, feeling with every part of his body: it is a Great Idea.

    Nikola Tesla in Note on Cabanellas Patent, No.164995
    Somewhere around 1904
    Let's keep in mind that by propagating The Tesla Mystique we are distorting his image. The real Tesla is much deeper and much more interesting than all the fiction that grew around him over the years.

    Reading what Tesla actually wrote, rather than what fiction writers wrote about him, is the best and most beneficial way to learn Tesla.
  • edited December 2014
    I would not take sides in this argument since both Tesla and Einstein had their strong and
    weak sides and neither one was more just or wrong. Tesla was a laboratory scientist and
    Einstein was a conceptual one. Both were dreamers, both had out of the box ideas and both
    had deep understanding of nature. I disagree with anyone who will say about almost any scientist
    that he tried to intentionally deceive the public with his / her theories !!!

    Scientists of this magnitude usually have a big ego, they are competitive with great hunger
    for recognition and attention and both Einstein and Tesla suffered from these symptoms.
    On the other hand both devote their lives to science and were honest with themselves as much
    as they could. So I will respect both even though I don't agree 100% with neither one of them.
  • edited December 2014
    I disagree with anyone who will say about almost any scientist that he tried to intentionally deceive the public with his / her theories !!!
    randomind, I was implying no such thing. Of course, no scientist worthy of the name is ever trying intentionally deceive the public with his / her theories. Here is how my question was phrased:
    Is it an innocent and momentary lapse of reason, a voluntary self-delusion of scientists, or rather a well-thought out coercion, a mind straitjacket, imposed deliberately and systematically upon, not only scientists, but all of us?
    It should be obvious that I am not questioning the integrity of the author of the theory here, the inquiry is about the system that seeks to preserve the status quo, which has little to do with the honest search for the truth. Almost every week I see articles on Yahoo news about how great Einstein's theories are. Do the journalists, who write those pieces, know what they are talking about? Is it accidental? If so, why then we almost never hear about Tesla in the news?

    Meanwhile, is there someone who fascinates open-minded researchers on the Internet more than Tesla does? Einstein evokes no interest whatsoever to someone who is honestly searching for the truth today.

    STR and GTR are living dead, it is high time to bury them and never mention again.
  • In my view E=MC^2 is a private case for radioactive elements and isotopes, since no other
    substance exhibit radioactive decay nor nuclear fission (nuclear fusion which according to the
    theory is done on stars is still a theory and was never done by human).

    In theory the masses of any two matters have the same amount of energy. More than that,
    striping the atom from it's electrons does not take much energy but only splitting the nucleus
    is responsible to the release of a great energy. In other words - the Strong Nuclear Force is
    holding Neutrons and Protons together (and against their will, since the protons have positive
    charge and they repel each other, but cannot escape).

    I tend to accept Ed's take about radioactive substances that carry much more magnets in orbit
    than other matters and the reason for the decay is because these radioactive elements were
    created deep near the center of the earth under great pressure and heat while absorbing
    concentrated amount of magnets that circulating the earth and once these elements came to
    the surface of the earth they releasing this excess magnets in order to become normal again.
    If I'm not wrong Uranium after loosing it's radioactivity become lead.

    That's why I think E=MC^2 is valid to radioactive substances. But this is only one aspect of it.
  • edited December 2014
    Whether I agree / partially / don't agree with any theory, I ponder, dig down to it's roots and
    always always learn something new. Sometimes it's about the experiments made or the equations
    which described a certain phenomena, or the work assumptions, the technology that came out
    or the collapse of a theory by a newer one.

    In the case of special and relativity it was the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz who came up first
    with the math which showed the relations between an observer and traveler (by the way he
    believed in the aether, which Einstein rejected). He showed time dilation, length contraction, the
    relative relations between two systems and the constant speed of light. That was Lorentz not
    Einstein who came first with these conclusions. Einstein claimed that he never saw the math by
    Lorentz prior to his findings.

    The other part of special relativity was done by Einstein is converting mass to energy and
    vice versa. This part as I said before tie the speed of light with the mass and the energy and
    to my opinion a private case for radioactive substances. But there is also something very
    interesting : according to Ed light is another form of matter. He said that a particle of light that
    came from the sun for instance could be "wrapped" by orbiting magnets (similar to his atomic
    model). Since I tend to accept this model, I find similarity between Ed and Einstein which I could
    not figure out yet this connection or if it have any validity at all ?

    Special and general relativity were validated by many experiments (different aspects of them at
    each time), though it seems quit a speculative value to them, more than a real life explanation.
    Sort of viewing reality from a different perspective, but not a one which answer how gravity really
    work or what is light, mass, atom structure or energy.

    To me the Relativities are more of a mind game than reality science, but without
    a doubt - fascinating.
  • edited December 2014
    I agree with you Barau that the aether left out and in fact was beheaded by the Michelson-Morely
    experiment (which was done for completely different purpose).
    Modern Physics was literally made a pogrom in the wrong aether, but it was overlooked that
    indeed they hanged the wrong concept and not the aether itself.....

    Same happen with magnetic monopoles - Gauss showed why they cannot exists but at the
    same token he define the wrong monopoles..... The funny part is that Ed's monopoles are
    different than Gauss ones and you cannot compare between the two. So far science admits
    their possible existence and even claim that finding them is the best bet to get a Nobel prize,
    but yet, no one found them...... more than that - no one could isolate magnetic Dipoles
    yet !!!! Which suppose to exists according to physics, but because they were defined wrongly
    in the first place, no one will ever find them !!! In other words : as long as electricity creates
    magnetism - you literally close the lid over the opportunity to discover neither magnetic Dipoles
    nor Monopoles.

    The irony of physics.
  • edited December 2014
    Special and general relativity were validated by many experiments (different aspects of them at each time), though it seems quit a speculative value to them, more than a real life explanation. Sort of viewing reality from a different perspective, but not a one which answer how gravity really work or what is light, mass, atom structure or energy.

    To me the Relativities are more of a mind game than reality science, but without a doubt - fascinating.
    Equally, we could assert as well that the geocentric model of the solar system was validated by many observations. In fact, astronomical predictions of Ptolemaic system were no less accurate than those of Copernican. But common sense rejects forcefully geocentric model of Ptolemy in favor of heliocentric system of Copernicus.

    Regarding how gravity really works, the most brilliant and the most plausible theory is, in my opinion, that of LeSage. Maxwell and Poincare rejected Le Sage model on the grounds that it could not be reconciled with thermodynamics. The irony of this is that it never occurred to Maxwell, Poincare, or anyone else: maybe the fault is in thermodynamics, rather than in Le Sage's theory. Having studied closely published and unpublished works of Edwin Jaynes, I am reasonably sure that that was exactly the case. Thermodynamics is not a fundamental science. For example, second law of thermodynamics is not a physical law in the same sense as the first law is; formalism of thermodynamics is of purely epistemological nature altogether.

    Quantum mechanics, in comparison, is kind of a mixed bag. As Edwin Jaynes put it eloquently in Probability in Quantum Theory:
    But our present [quantum mechanical] formalism is not purely epistemological; it is a peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information about Nature — all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we think that the unscrambling is a prerequisite for any further advance in basic physical theory. For, if we cannot separate the subjective and objective aspects of the formalism, we cannot know what we are talking about; it is just that simple.
    At last, there is nothing wrong with the concept of relativity per se (in fact, it is the most important concept in physics) - it's Einstein's warped version of relativity concept that is wrong. The best discussion on the subject of relativity that I have come across so far is by Andre Assis in his Relational Mechanics.
  • edited December 2014
    It's difficult to understand what is your point on the validation of special and general relativity ?
    Are you saying that adjusting satellite clocks orbiting the earth because they are moving faster
    than us (according to relativity principles) - is imaginary ? Or are you saying that there are
    no atomic plants on earth, no atom bombs (that based on E=MC^2) ?

    When you say that the validation of relativity is equal to the validation of the geocentric model,
    what exactly do you mean ?

    Now to LeSage theory about gravity :
    1. If there is a movement of particles in all direction (maybe aether ?) and the shielding of two
    bodies causing them to attract each other (sort of low pressure between them), then since
    you did not defined the different directions and the velocity of these particles (assuming we
    know their mass) or if there is attraction or repulsion between them, then each time you will
    test the same bodies w/ same mass, shape and density you will get different attraction
    between them ?
    2. What happen when the particles hit an object ? is absorbed in the object or it
    deflected back ? And if it absorb then the objects are getting heavier and heavier
    each day ?

    If you studied Edwin Jaynes for 10 years and you think it's the best scientific theory which
    describe gravity, can you please explain in one paragraph some important basic point on
    this theory ?

    Thanks
  • edited September 2015
    When you say that the validation of relativity is equal to the validation of the geocentric model, what exactly do you mean ?
    The same experimental facts and observations may perfectly fit different interpretations. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that one interpretation is more preferable, or more "correct" so to speak, than the other. How can we tell which one is which? In answering this question, it is common practice to invoke the principle known as Occam's Razor: the simpler model - the more preferable it is, in other words, the "correct" interpretation is the simpler one. But I prefer a different criterion: the "correct" interpretation is the one which is more fertile. Tesla is the epitome of fruitful and realistic thinking while Einstein is the embodiment of barren and futile activity.
    If you studied Edwin Jaynes for 10 years and you think it's the best scientific theory which describe gravity, can you please explain in one paragraph some important basic point on this theory?
    Jaynes does not have a theory for the mechanism of gravitation, Le Sage does. In my statement "Having studied closely published and unpublished works of Edwin Jaynes, I am reasonably sure that that was exactly the case", that refers to the fault is in thermodynamics from the prior statement "The irony of this is that it never occurred to Maxwell, Poincare, or anyone else: maybe the fault is in thermodynamics, rather than in Le Sage's theory".

    Why am I reasonably sure that the fault is in thermodynamics? This is a rather bold and startling statement which calls for some explanation. I will give my reasons in the next installment.

  • edited December 2014
    So, what is wrong with thermodynamics? Not a question easy to answer.

    The first thing that should give a pause in thermodynamic to any thinking person is its weird prediction: The heat death of the universe. The idea of heat death was originated by William Thomson a.k.a Lord Kelvin; it stems from the second law of thermodynamics, according to which entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. The escape from this prediction, which (the prediction that is) does not sit very well with common sense, offered by Lord Kelvin himself was that the universe, probably, is not a finite isolated system after all.

    In 1862 paper "On the age of the sun’s heat", he wrote:
    The result would inevitably be a state of universal rest and death, if the universe were finite and left to obey existing laws. But it is impossible to conceive a limit to the extent of matter in the universe; and therefore science points rather to an endless progress, through an endless space, of action involving the transformation of potential energy into palpable motion and hence into heat, than to a single finite mechanism, running down like a clock, and stopping for ever
    But there is another escape that never occurred to Lord Kelvin, or anyone else for that matter: inherently fractal structure of matter in the universe.

    Maxwell, in his objection to Le Sage theory, argues that the temperature of bodies must tend to approach that at which the average kinetic energy of a molecule of the body would be equal to the average kinetic energy of an ultra-mundane particle and he states that the latter quantity must be much greater than the former and concludes that ordinary matter should be incinerated within seconds under the Le Sage bombardment.

    But as soon as the fractal nature of matter distribution in the universe is recognized, the Rayleigh-Jeans equipartition law (or theorem), on which the "entropy tends to increase" folly is hinged, falls apart.

    That's why I believe that thermodynamics based refutation of Le Sage theory of gravitation by Maxwell and Poincare does not hold water.
This discussion has been closed.