COSMOS magazine


Share |


Feature - print

Was Einstein a fake?


There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein a fake?


Single page print view

If you're tired of hearing about 'Intelligent design' creationists and the court wars against Darwin's theory in the U.S., you might be surprised to learn that another pillar of modern science, Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, is under attack.

A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it's an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was no less than a cheat.

A quick glance at anti-relativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works – very few of them in agreement with each other. But despite their many differences, common themes among these self-described iconoclasts do emerge: resentment of academic 'elites', suspicion of the entire peer-review process in mainstream scientific journals and a deep-seated paranoia about the extent of government involvement in scientific projects.

An aethro-kinematics website (www.aethro-kinematics.com) claims to refute relativity by resurrecting René Descartes' theory that the Earth and all the planets are carried around the Sun by an "Aether vortex". Another site points to the work of one Stefan Marinov, a self-described dissident, who apparently threatened to immolate himself in front of the British Embassy in Vienna, Austria, because he was so incensed by the refusal of the respected journal Nature to publish his 'proofs' against relativity.

This is just a taste. A visit to Google reveals the extent of the phenomenon. Is this a new front in the war on science? Can we expect a new Discovery Institute, armed with millions of dollars from eccentric fundamentalists, spoiling for a rematch in school boards across the U.S. — this time attacking Einstein and not Darwin?

Hopefully not, according to Bryan Gaensler, a professor of physics at the University of Sydney. "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along well enough to form a serious threat to science."

Having said that, he adds, "there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by anti-relativity cranks, called 'Crisis in Cosmology'. I think the first one was held in Spain and they're planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane."

The conference planners sent out invitations to Gaensler and hundreds of other physicists. "Before registering," he says, "you had to fill out this 10-point, bulleted manifesto, agreeing to all sorts of propositions from the start. For example, 'I do not accept that the universe is expanding', and so on, the kind of thing you would never see at a real scientific conference. It was hilarious."

The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of almost every crank theory since.

Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and offered a radically new explanation for gravity.

A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame. Outside Germany, however, Einstein's theory also met resistance. Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.

Like many physicists and astronomers, Gaensler routinely hears from individuals claiming to have proven Einstein's theory false. "I have a boxload of material from cranks," he says, "but currently it's in storage aboard a ship somewhere between the U.S. and Sydney." A native Australian, Gaensler has just completed an eight-year stint in Boston, teaching at Harvard University and conducting research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.

"But there is a pattern," he says. "They're always male — never female. Normally professionals of some kind, doctors, pilots, engineers. And they're always retired and have years to spend on their pet theory.

"Whenever the observatory sends out a press release, they read it and send out mass-mailings to every scientist listed as having anything to do with the event."

Follow COSMOSmagazine on TwitterJoin COSMOSmagazine on Facebook

Readers' comments

THE REAL PROBLEMS WITH RELATIVITY

John Farrell wrote: "The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of almost every crank theory since."

Red herrings. The real problems with Einstein's relativity were formulated by Einstein himself at the end of his life:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "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."

John Farrell also wrote: "Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met."

Michelson had any reason not to accept relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Looking at the right theory in the wrong places

The problem with many anti-relativists is that they most often assume that the Special Theory of Relativity is somehow wrong, when it is, apart from numerous empirical tests, mathematically elegant and once fully understood a true work of Genius. Special Theory is a correction of Newton’s work and based on all the science that went before it.

If the so named cranks want to question something Einstein, then look at Unified Field theory, but then everyone, including Einstein himself, criticized that work. However there are issues with the unification of The General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory, they will not unify. This gives birth to an assortment of modified theories and alternative theories etc. However, perhaps it is Quantum Theory the cranks should be looking into, while it successful predicts and accounts for various properties of the real world its uncertainty and thus its unavoidable unknowableness is daunting. Einstein was the last of the true Classical theorists in physics, after which Quantum Theory, after successful prediction of events, became and still is the new kid on the block. If anyone is a true Quantum theorist, they often have lingering doubts about General Relativity, and vice versa.

The real issue is, science, should be for all people, but professors and cranks alike must base their theories of sound mathematical and logical constructs and not wishy washy ideas, and that claim is not limited to cranks either, some papers by tenured professors I've read of late are somewhat questionable as well.

Don’t be afraid to question any dogma, but before questioning a theory must one fully understand it first!

Asmodelle
Sydney, Australia

Errors

I admire your conviction to SRT, however the mathematical elegant comment and numerous empirical tests is a bold statement.
Have you actually read the paper of 1905 (and understood it) there is nothing elegant about it not to mention the basic mathematical errors.
The theory is not an extension of Newton but rather a departure from classical physics.

Einstein / unification theory

Acccording to standard electrical theory a field moves around a current according to the right hand rule; IE index finger pointing away, field follows direction of thumb curve. So much for mathmatical generalisations. However picture this, the helical field (magnetic) surrounding a source of energy travelling from point A to point B at the speed of light assumedly has a maximum field energy at some point toward the centre of the energy field and dissipates in intensity with distance away from the energy source. Again, adhering to convention the current (Energy) and the voltage (Energy) are travelling 180 degrees out of phase with each other and are travelling in opposite directions but the magnetic field is unidirectional. If as is demonstratable that this is the case; then as the field reached maximum intensity at some distance away from the core of the energy; then the helix is travelling a longer path than the energy and must in accordance with E's theory be travelling at a speed in advance of that of light ie it is in the future and is pulling the energy along?? This might explain the rate of expansion of the universe and a few other things such as perception and time.

THE RELATIVITY FRAUD: SIMPLE AND MONUMENTAL

There is an elementary equation in physics:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

According to the equation, if the frequency varies, this could be due to a variation of either the speed of light or the wavelength. The frequency does vary and clever relativists have always known that the frequency variation is due to a variation of the speed of light. However they have also known that this variability of the speed of light is fatal not only for the theory of relativity but also for the whole modern physics. On the other hand, the world (not only clever relativists) has always known that Einstein's relativity is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, not variable. How then could the collapse of modern physics be avoided?

Through destruction of rationality in science. If you manage to destroy it, scientists would accept anything: that the wavelength rather than the speed of light varies, that the speed of light does indeed vary but not locally, that the problem of the variability of the speed of light disappeared when Einstein created his general relativity, that the speed of light is variable in general relativity but constant in special relativity, that the frequency variation is due to gravitational time dilation, not to the variation of the speed of light, etc. etc. There seems to be no absurd explanation that relativity hypnotists have not contrived and taught. The destruction of rationality in science is irreversible.

Pentcho Valev

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Valev, you wrote that this 'well known formula' makes clear that speed of light is not constant and therefore relativity fails. Has it ever occured to you that you use the formula in the wrong way,and that actually frequency/wavelength might possibly be constant?

here you can find a simple explanation of this formula: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/frequency.html

I believe that the main problem of nutters who try and attack relativity is first with their not understanding the scientific method and second of interpreting well-defined mathematical, scientific and psychics concepts from a non-mathematical et cetera framework.

Even here it should be noted

Even here it should be noted that the speed of light does not vary in general relativity, rather non-information wave packets are allowed to travel faster then the speed of light, but the light SIGNAL itself is still confined to its constant c velocity. Please research properly before you post in arrogance.

Wrong use of the wave equation Valev.

Valev, your disagreement with relativity accrues from your ignorance of the elementary wave equation : f = speed/wavelength. For you to have erroneously interpreted one of the basic equations of physics, I wonder how you could understand something as advanced as relativity let alone criticize it.
Well Valev, light does not behave like everyday objects whose speeds can vary, the frequency-wavelength product(that is speed) is always a constant for light. For the frequency of light to change, it is the wavelength and not the speed that will vary. If you are not a scientist do not try to get cheap popularity by a display of ignorance because you have no authority on the issue of relativity, but if you're a scientist, go back to elementary science books and study before hastily displaying ignorance and later regretting.

Inconsistence of length contraction

If relativity cannot overcome the mathematical inconsistence in length measurement brought up by the concept of length contraction, nothing more is needed to put the validity of this theory in a skeptical position. The mathematical consequence of this concept is that the same segment of a straight line can be simultaneously concluded to have two values by an observer when he passes by the line at a constant speed. This inconsistence is shown in a website http://www.aquasoil.net with very simple mathematical demonstration that takes less than four 8x11 pages. You are cordially invited to visit the site. While ignoring anything else that does not interest you there, you can go directly to the page of "Solution Paper" and click the button "More Disasters" to find out.

Corrections and alternate viewpoint

According to Bryan Gaensler: "But there is a pattern," he says. "They're always male — never female."

One of the most outspoken and clearly stated opponents of Einstein's Relativity theories is Cynthia Kolb Whitney, editor of Galilean Electrodynamics: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/adring/GEEditors.htm

She has a PhD in both Mathematics and Physics.

According to Jeremy Bernstein: "Jeremy Bernstein points out that one of the criteria that always defines crank 'science' is its lack of correspondence with the body of scientific knowledge that has gone before it. 'I would insist that any proposal for a radically new theory in physics, or in any other science, contain a clear explanation of why the precedent science worked,' he writes. In contrast, 'the crank,' Bernstein writes, 'is a scientific solipsist who lives in his own little world. He has no understanding nor appreciation of the scientific matrix in which his work is embedded ... In my dealings with cranks, I have discovered that this kind of discussion is of no interest to them.'"

The priests of the Relativity Temple grandstand like this frequently. However, when I self-published, "Secrets of the Aether," which fully quantifies the Aether based upon the empirical data of modern science, and showed a charge-based formulation of Einstein's simplified field equation (as opposed to Einstein's mass-based equation), it was completely ignored by the scientific establishment. Not only does the Aether Physics Model explain General Relativity, it also properly unifies all the fundamental forces with Newtonian style equations and force laws, even for the strong force.

http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

The Aether Physics Model also reveals several key errors in modern physics, such as the dimension of charge should always be distributed (not single dimension), there are two quantifiable types of charges (not just one), the fine structure constant pertains to the relationship of these two types of charges, all photons are quantum structures precisely equal to Planck's constant times the speed of light, and dozens of other fundamental discoveries.

However, the Relativity Temple of Einstein dictates that the Aether is not necessary for understanding physics. The irrational conclusion is that the Aether must then be false, and that anybody who quantifies it must be a crank (crackpot, fool, [create your own slanderous term]}.

The real travesty of science is not the presentation of a quantifiable Aether, but the forsaking of science in order to uphold a predetermined and unproven point of view that Aether does not exist.

"In the end, Gaensler says, 'I feel sorry for these people — because, after all, there might be someone out there now like Einstein, working in obscurity, who does have some truly new insight, but scientists just won't take him seriously because of all these other crackpots we've had to deal with.'"

How true!

David Thomson
Quantum AetherDynamics Institute
(A home-based, non-profit research organization staffed by "cranks" for the purpose of doing real science based upon real math, and based entirely upon the body of scientific knowledge that has gone before it.)