Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

But it is the general theory of relativity and gravitation which
has created the Einstein myth through the fascination of the
non-euclidean geometry adopted by Albert Einstein from his
German landsman Bernhard Riemann.

It is the failure to quantize Einstein’s gravitational field theory
formulated in a Riemannian curved space-time which has led
to a profound crisis in modern physics, no less profound than
was the crisis of physics at the beginning of the 20thcentury,
resolved by the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics.

To overcome the present crisis several leading theoretical
physicists have entered a mazeof speculations from which there
appears to be no escape: The conjectured existence of higher
dimensional spaces, previously reserved by the spiritists as the
seat for the ghosts of the dead, not supported by a single piece
of physical evidence, with all physics laboratories still
three-dimensional.

When Heisenberg unsuccessfully tried to formulate a unified
theory of elementary particles he only tried to change the
postulates of quantum mechanics, but did not question the
special theory of relativity.

This example shows that the question to be asked should be:
Could it be that either quantum mechanics or the theory of
relativity, or perhaps both be “wrong,” in the same sense
“wrong” as Newton’s mechanics was found to be “wrong”
in the face of quantum mechanics?


Full paper available from:
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/

or as the .pdf
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/myth.pdf







--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Rest snipped.

Bill

mountain man wrote:
When Heisenberg unsuccessfully tried to formulate a unified
theory of elementary particles he only tried to change the
postulates of quantum mechanics, but did not question the
special theory of relativity.

This example shows that the question to be asked should be:
Could it be that either quantum mechanics or the theory of
relativity, or perhaps both be "wrong," in the same sense
"wrong" as Newton's mechanics was found to be "wrong"
in the face of quantum mechanics?

Full paper available from:
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/

or as the .pdf
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/myth.pdf

Pete,

It is very unlikely that special relativity is wrong in
the macroscopic realm. The greatest evidence for special
relativity is that it can be derived only from Newton's
first law of motion and the homogeneity of time:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

If superluminality has truly been verified, then it's an
easy matter to adjust special relativity to account for it.
All you need is an absolute frame of reference. It is well
known, for instance, that spatially compact spacetimes break
global Lorentz invariance and define absolute frames of
reference:

http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/ab...13-NOV-97.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503070.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstra.../v8/i6/p1662_1
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0006/0006039.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

I sincerely thank for bringing Winterberg's paper to my
attention. I enjoyed reading it. He did an excellent job
of depicting the pure fantasy universe that physicists
have manufactured and from which they cannot escape.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Dont you mean GR plus the additional "dark matter"
postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?




--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

Bill Hobba wrote:
"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Never argue with a realist and reductionist.

Mike




Rest snipped.

Bill

mountain man wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...

Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.


Dont you mean GR plus the additional "dark matter"
postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?





"Dark Matter" is simply matter that is not emitting
or absorbing photons.... What has that to do with
General Relativity?

Scientists Map Dark Matter, Prove Einstein Right
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html

Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Perspicacious wrote:

It is very unlikely that special relativity is wrong in
the macroscopic realm. The greatest evidence for special
relativity is that it can be derived only from Newton's
first law of motion and the homogeneity of time:


Special Relativity show that time and space are malleable.

See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.

__________________________________________


There has *never* been a prediction of special relativity that was
contradicted by an observation. *Never!*

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Dont you mean GR plus the additional "dark matter"
postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?

No. A simple cosmological model based on reasonable assumptions shows the
acceleration should be slowing yet is observed to be accelerating. This
either shows GR or some of the other assumptions that goes into the model is
false. The assumption that has been found wanting is not GR but that matter
exists that may be 'exotic' by which is meant it violates the strong energy
condition - one of the assumptions that goes into the model. Dark matter is
supposed to do just that - violate the strong energy condition. Indeed if
inflation is correct the early universe violated the strong energy
condition. One can not claim GR has been refuted when other assumptions can
also explain it. Although the strong energy condition is looked upon as
suspect still other assumptions (not GR) could be at fault.

Bill





--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

Bill Hobba wrote:
"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Dont you mean GR plus the additional "dark matter"
postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?

No. A simple cosmological model based on reasonable assumptions shows the
acceleration should be slowing yet is observed to be accelerating. This
either shows GR or some of the other assumptions that goes into the model is
false. The assumption that has been found wanting is not GR but that matter
exists that may be 'exotic' by which is meant it violates the strong energy
condition - one of the assumptions that goes into the model. Dark matter is
supposed to do just that - violate the strong energy condition.

I thought that was dark energy? Or are you proposing the two are one
in the same? They are usually sorted such that the dark matter is what
holds galaxies and clusters together (and causes increased lensing) and
the dark energy is what causes cosmological inflation.

Indeed if
inflation is correct the early universe violated the strong energy
condition. One can not claim GR has been refuted when other assumptions can
also explain it. Although the strong energy condition is looked upon as
suspect still other assumptions (not GR) could be at fault.


The observation of an accelerating "universe" also relies on numerous
assumptions/calculations which could be partially wrong, such as the
distance/redshift relation, the calibration of standard candles,
assumed consistancy of certain supernova types, etc. I agree with you
it isn't evidence of a failure of GR.

That being said, unless dark matter is found and understood we should
at least consider alternative theories of gravity that can explain the
motion of stars in galaxies.

Cheers - shevek

"shevek" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
Abstract:
Modern physics consists of two paradigms and one myth:
The theory of relativity,quantum theory and the Einstein myth.
While both, the special theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics, are confirmed by a very large body of
experimental facts, this cannot be said about the general
theory of relativity.

Wrong. GR has yet to find experimental refutation.

Dont you mean GR plus the additional "dark matter"
postulate when considered together have yet to find
experimental refutation?

No. A simple cosmological model based on reasonable assumptions shows
the
acceleration should be slowing yet is observed to be accelerating. This
either shows GR or some of the other assumptions that goes into the model
is
false. The assumption that has been found wanting is not GR but that
matter
exists that may be 'exotic' by which is meant it violates the strong
energy
condition - one of the assumptions that goes into the model. Dark matter
is
supposed to do just that - violate the strong energy condition.

I thought that was dark energy? Or are you proposing the two are one
in the same? They are usually sorted such that the dark matter is what
holds galaxies and clusters together (and causes increased lensing) and
the dark energy is what causes cosmological inflation.

I have not noticed a particular distinction made between the two - they seem
to often be grouped together. But matter is the term normally used to
describe matter (which exotic matter is a form of) - not energy. In the
early universe at the time of inflation before matter had formed energy is
probably a better term (for the false vacuum) - but at the current epoch
matter would seem to fit better.


Indeed if
inflation is correct the early universe violated the strong energy
condition. One can not claim GR has been refuted when other assumptions
can
also explain it. Although the strong energy condition is looked upon as
suspect still other assumptions (not GR) could be at fault.


The observation of an accelerating "universe" also relies on numerous
assumptions/calculations which could be partially wrong, such as the
distance/redshift relation, the calibration of standard candles,
assumed consistancy of certain supernova types, etc. I agree with you
it isn't evidence of a failure of GR.

Yep.


That being said, unless dark matter is found and understood we should
at least consider alternative theories of gravity that can explain the
motion of stars in galaxies.

Agreed. The point though is it is not evidence for a failure of GR.

Thanks
Bill


Cheers - shevek