(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
[snip]

What Einstein's slavish supporters perceive to be slander, is often
the expression of frustration of those who see flaws in his theories,
towards those who blindly cling to the illogical conclusions of his
thought processes. Having (according to his supporters) found the
fountain of knowledge, and what should have been the Holy Grail to
human enlightenment and scientific and technological advancement,
Einstein spent the last many years of his life doing about f*a*. One
wonders if he recognised himself a fatal flaw, and went into 'damage
control' supporting his early work, when perhaps he should have had
the courage to say "whoops! sorry! back to the drawing board!"

The purpose of this thread has NOTHING to do with your imaginary
"slavish supporters" defending Einstein against challeneges to his
relativity theory! It has ONLY to do with claims that he was a dolt
and a thief. Did you read the original post of this thread?


If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything from a
cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere) should have been
achieved.

Why don't you exaplin to us how "100% correct" relativity could bring
on a cure to cancer and solve food shortages. I don't see the
connections.


Instead, 'scientific' advances seem to be wholly in the
hands of technicians, biologists, chemists, engineers etc- where are
the huge advances which should have come from such a pure and accurate
knowledge of physics? There were nuclear explosions, power plants--
and then???

Nuclear explosions? The theory for that didn't come from biology or
agronomy.

What is "pure and accurate knowledge of physics"? Do you know of any
"100% correct" theory in physics?

Patrick

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...

I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!

What errors in logic?

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message m...

[snip]

I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!

And you and I will be under that scanner 10 years from now.

Dirk Vdm

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02...

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...

I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!

What errors in logic?

The most fundamental errors are these:

1. The promotion of the non-existent "inertia mass".
(The has wasted much time and brain power.)

2. The assertion that mass and energy are the same thing.
Mass and energy are completely different physical properties.
(The has wasted much time and brain power.)

3. The insistences on continuity.
(When it is obvious that reality arises from quantum events.)

4. The denial of quantum mechanics (God rolling dice).
(The has wasted much time and brain power, much of it Bohr's.)
(Also note how much money and effort has gone into quantum gravity
with the emphasis on trying to make the quantum agree with Einstein's
continuous GR.)

5. Making mass more fundamental than time and space,
and for that matter events.
In other words Einstein asserted that mass distorts time and space,
whereas mass arises from time and space, and time and space arise
from quantum events.
(This has sent physics off on a tangent, like much of Aristotle's works.)

6. The elevation of "equivalence" to a important role,
when the whole idea detracts from the fact that interactions
are symmetrical, and that the so-called gravitational forces
are simply situations where one perceives an object as fixed in media (Time
and space)
and inertial forces are simply situations where one perceives an object is
varying in media (Time and space)

These two different ways (Inertia and gravity) of looking at the same thing
(An interaction)
came about because of the weaknesses in man's two-body math.
To simplify two-body problems, one body is perceived to be fixed in media
( Time and space)
and the second body is perceived to be varying in media.

Gravitational forces are associated with bodies perceived to be fixed in
media,
whereas inertia forces are associated with bodies perceived to be varying in
media.
For example, in the Sun/Earth two-body system, the Sun is perceived to be
fixed in media ( Time and space),
and the Earth is perceived to be varying in media.
Thus the Earth gets the 365.25 days ( Time) and the 93,000,000 miles (
Space),
and the Sun gets the Universal Gravitational Constant "G" to balance the
equation.

mass(Sun) * G = distance(Earth)^3 / time(Earth)^2

For a detailed, graphic outline of this,
visit my web site, and download my physics tutorial.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message om...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message
[snip]

Nuclear explosions? The theory for that didn't come from biology or
agronomy.

What is "pure and accurate knowledge of physics"? Do you know of any
"100% correct" theory in physics?

Patrick
I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!
JimG

Please be specific. What "errors in the logic" are at the foundation
of Einstein's relativity? What was to you obviously better than
relativity? In what sense is modern physics in a dead end. I just
don't see your "dead end" physics state at all. What's your proposed
cure to this dead end?

Patrick

robert egri wrote:
To quote verbatim from: L. de Broglie:
"L'Oeuvre d"Einstein et la Dualite des Ondes at
des Corpuscles," Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 21, No 3.
July 1949, pp345-347:

"M. Albert Einstein dont tout le monde savant
celebre aujourd'hui le soixante-dixieme
anniversaire a accompli une oeuvre scientifique
d'une immense porteee: en dehors de ces
importants travaux sur la theorie des
fluctuations et sur le mouvements Brownien, il
a cree entierement la theorie de la Relativite
qui a tenu a juste titre une si grande place
dans la Physique contemporaine et il a, a
plusieurs reprises, apporte des contributions
essentielles au developpement de la theorie des
Quanta. C'est lui en particulier qui a le
premier souligne la dulaite d'aspect
onde-corpuscule dans le cas de la lumiere et
qui en a tres finement analyse quelques unes
des consequences les plus importantes. Nous
voudrions montrer dans les pages qui suivent le
lien qui existe entre les deux parties
essentielles de l'oeuvre d'Einstein; ce n'est
pas par hasard que le createur de la theorie de
la Relativite a ete aussi le precurseur de la
Mecanique ondulatoire et des theories
quantiques actuelles..."

de Broglie, fairly capable and talented younger
colleague with some recognized contribution to
the subject matter himself, did not have to
write this, he volunteered.

That is no wonder, since De Broglie thesis about
matter waves was going to be refused by the French
academics. ( around 1920). Luckily, Einstein was
in France and defended De Broglie's views.

"The Broglie's examiners were reluctant to give
him a degree such a fooled idea, he got the degree
alright but only because Albert Einstein happened
to be visiting paris at the time and said : "look,
this is not such a bad idea, maybe it is even true"

Sometime later 'matter waves', interferences
patterns of electrons chased through a atomic
grid, were discovered.

I wonder why Einstein, who had such an open mind,
on matter wave duality of both light and
particles, could not adapt to the 'probalistic'
views on QM brought forward by Pauli and Heisenberg.

From the bbc documentary "uncertain principles" :
John Gribbin narrating : "[Einstein] he could not
believe that the outcome of an experiment depended
on chance, and thats what lead Einstein for the
last twenty years or more of his life to fight
this more or less lone battle against the theory
that was taking physics by storm, and try to find
flaws in it...."


Hayek.

"Hayek" wrote in message
...

robert egri wrote:
To quote verbatim from: L. de Broglie:
"L'Oeuvre d"Einstein et la Dualite des Ondes at
des Corpuscles," Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 21, No 3.
July 1949, pp345-347:

"M. Albert Einstein dont tout le monde savant
celebre aujourd'hui le soixante-dixieme
anniversaire a accompli une oeuvre scientifique
d'une immense porteee: en dehors de ces
importants travaux sur la theorie des
fluctuations et sur le mouvements Brownien, il
a cree entierement la theorie de la Relativite
qui a tenu a juste titre une si grande place
dans la Physique contemporaine et il a, a
plusieurs reprises, apporte des contributions
essentielles au developpement de la theorie des
Quanta. C'est lui en particulier qui a le
premier souligne la dulaite d'aspect
onde-corpuscule dans le cas de la lumiere et
qui en a tres finement analyse quelques unes
des consequences les plus importantes. Nous
voudrions montrer dans les pages qui suivent le
lien qui existe entre les deux parties
essentielles de l'oeuvre d'Einstein; ce n'est
pas par hasard que le createur de la theorie de
la Relativite a ete aussi le precurseur de la
Mecanique ondulatoire et des theories
quantiques actuelles..."

de Broglie, fairly capable and talented younger
colleague with some recognized contribution to
the subject matter himself, did not have to
write this, he volunteered.

That is no wonder, since De Broglie thesis about
matter waves was going to be refused by the French
academics. ( around 1920). Luckily, Einstein was
in France and defended De Broglie's views.

"The Broglie's examiners were reluctant to give
him a degree such a fooled idea, he got the degree
alright but only because Albert Einstein happened
to be visiting paris at the time and said : "look,
this is not such a bad idea, maybe it is even true"

I find it hard to believe that
"Broglie's examiners were reluctant to give
a degree" to an obviously brilliant member
of French nobility.

Everyone recognized the brilliance of De Broglie work,
in fact it provided the stimulus that quickly lead to the
formulation of quantum mechanics,
and within five years, he had received a Nobel Prize.

Anyone who has read anything written by De Broglie
would be instantly impressed by his brilliance,
his clarity and his insightfulness.

How such an individual could be denied a degree for an original
and brilliant paper, that was instantly recognized as such
by all the great thinkers, is beyond me.

I challenge the poster to provide
concurrent, historical data that verifies his assertion.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

"Richard Henry" wrote in message news:cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...

I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!

What errors in logic?

Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time. But
a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
a moving train it would NOT. So the observers made a mistake, and
photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
Jim G

Tom Potter wrote:

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02...

[snip]

What errors in [Einstein's] logic?

The most fundamental errors are these:

1. The promotion of the non-existent "inertia mass".
(The has wasted much time and brain power.)

???

2. The assertion that mass and energy are the same thing.
Mass and energy are completely different physical properties.
(The has wasted much time and brain power.)

Energy is the fourth component of the impulse vector, and this is
identical with mass. A quite simple derivation. But one must
not discuss that in view of the overwhelming empirical evidence.

3. The insistences on continuity.
(When it is obvious that reality arises from quantum events.)

Ah. You are not alone with this restricted view. ;-/
It is indeed obvious that reality arises from quantum events. But
quantum events arise from continuum, so what ! Not even Einstein's
followers see that simple. Read
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
I have empirical evidence for that !!!

4. The denial of quantum mechanics (God rolling dice).
(The has wasted much time and brain power, much of it Bohr's.)

I'm afraid that Bohr developed a false approach. The "quantum events"
have nothing to do with a "rolling dice". My numerical simulations
demonstrate quite clearly that such "quantum events" are connected
with chaos.

(Also note how much money and effort has gone into quantum gravity
with the emphasis on trying to make the quantum agree with Einstein's
continuous GR.)

"Quantum gravity" is of course crap. Gravitation is quantized no way.

5. Making mass more fundamental than time and space,
and for that matter events.
In other words Einstein asserted that mass distorts time and space,

I'm inclined to agree. That may be the reason why Einstein not more
succeeded in the try to make a general theory of fields. That
general theory comes from alone, as you can see on my site. It's
pure geometry !

whereas mass arises from time and space,

Yes. It is the first integration constant of the source-free
Einstein equations.

and time and space arise
from quantum events.

No. That is illogical. One defines an event from time - do you see
the contradiction ?

6. The elevation of "equivalence" to a important role,
[snip ununderstandable]

The "equivalence principle" means nothing else than the two parts
of the curvature vector, which decides the force to a mass.
That is an extraordinary "important role" to understand GR,
and physics at all.

Ulrich Bruchholz

In article ,
Jim Greenfield wrote:
"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cjKVa.4143$Ye.3260@fed1read02...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...

I apologise if I have slid off topic- I would not argue Einstein's
alledged plagiarism or any other aspect of his work, as I don't know
the history, and have the greatest admiration for his undoubted
intellect. BUT I still think that there are errors in the logic from
which Relativity was developed, which have lead physics into a dead
end. That nuclear explosion was 60 years ago!

What errors in logic?

Whether chicken or egg (prediction or conclusion), Einstein's position
on velocity of a photon was flawed. He imagined that the path of a
photon emmitted at the ceiling of a train and travelling to floor and
return, would appear to observer on train and platform to be
different, and therefore that velocity of the train altered time.

Not without also including the second postulate, that the speed of light
is the same in both inertial reference frames.

But
a stationary train, the photon would hit the earth's center, while on
a moving train it would NOT.

Inertial frame, Jim. Inertial! The track in this thought experiment
doesn't follow the curvature of the Earth because that would not be an
inertial frame.

So the observers made a mistake, and
photon velocity IS SOURCE DEPENDENT. Therefore time does not change
due to motion, nor does an object shrink at high speed.
Jim G

If the photon velocity is source dependent, it's not for the reason you've
given.

--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton