"In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other members of the public who are interested in science and even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested to have the reasons explained to them."
Not so with most cranks. In his book Cranks, Quarks and the Cosmos, science writer and physicist 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. Einstein did this, as the first page of his paper on special relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", illustrates perfectly.
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."
It doesn't seem to make any difference to point out to anti-relativists that, second to quantum mechanics, relativity is the most tested theory on the books. In fact, in one famous case, as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose pointed out, it meets predictions to an accuracy "to one part in 1014 (and this accuracy has apparently been limited merely by the accuracy of clocks on Earth)."
This is the famous case of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, PSR 1913+16, whose orbital decay met predictions based on the General Theory of Relativity, to the accuracy quoted above, during a period of 20 years. Both scientists who conducted this long-term experiment, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor, were awarded Nobel prizes in 1993.
And the testing hasn't stopped. None of the physicists I spoke to pretend that relativity is somehow sacrosanct, as dissenters typically complain. Smolin, for example, is working on a quantum theory of gravity. But as it stands, relativity is essential to quantum physics, as Harvard astrophysicist David Layzer told me. And quantum electrodynamics, which accounts for electromagnetic interactions at the atomic level, is not possible without the Special Theory of Relativity. To say nothing of the other daily confirmations of the theory's consequences provided by atomic accelerators, the GPS and, of course, the equivalence of mass and energy derived from special relativity in Einstein's most famous equation, E=mc2.
But this makes no impression on crackpots. They insist it can all be explained with an aether theory or some fiddling with Newton's gravitation. A review of any of these theories (for example, on the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup) inevitably reveals an array of special assumptions that must be called upon to get the same results as Einstein. Apparently this is to be preferred at all costs. It is interesting that cranks almost never dispute the accuracy of relativity's predictions; they just insist there must be a 'simpler' way.
Bryan Gaensler notes what appears to be the largely American nature of the anti-relativity phenomenon. "I mean, you have some nutters over here in Australia, too, but nothing like what you find in the United States. And you don't really find them in Europe either."
It would be a mistake, however, he adds, to draw a connection between the anti-Einstein types and the anti-Darwin Intelligent Design movement in the States, "which is definitely more sinister, with more organised financial backing and a religious motivation for their attacks on evolution".
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."
John Farrell is a writer and media producer in Boston and the author of The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology.
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.
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.
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.)
In other news, Einstein right again
Apparently the interim results from Gravity Probe B are once again in favour of Einstein, although not complete. A "signal", a finding, to demonstrate one of the two incredibly subtle relativistic effects that Einstein predicted has not yet been clearly shown in data. Ask us again around Thanksgiving, they say. This is the latest in a very long line of confirmations. Besides, the earth, the sun, and Mercury, pulsars and other peculiar objects in the skies that Einstein never knew to exist have also been summoned down to testify on his behalf, and have done so.
Although there are respectable theoretical reasons to be suspicious of Einstein's theory as final absolute truth (the problem of quantum theory?), no real challenge has been successful yet, and such would only be a refinement. But challenging Einstein's work shouldn't be discouraged too much. The certainty and self-confidence with which cosmological Don Quixotes build their perpetual motion windmills in the face of extremely solidly established fact is a useful reference point when considering the arguments of determined sceptics in other fields of inquiry where the science, or lay understanding of it, is any less clear. We can say that the strength of sceptical feeling does not justify anti-Einsteinism, therefore it does not in itself justify a contrarian position on any other matter of science, no matter to whom such a matter may be inconvenient.
Relativity criticism is positive
I am an atheist since I was like 10 years old. I figured out the concept of the existence of religions on the age of 12. I, myself, will never see any reason to be a fan of Intelligent Design. Keep in mind though, that for other people it is a great addition to their lifes. Be open minded. Be respectful.
What I hate is to put some religious concept as Intelligent Design on the same height as a physical model as relativity. It looks rather strange to me when I read that opener. I might want to even accuse them that they WANT to threat relativity criticism the same as ID criticism to undermine anti-SR their credibility. Bad way to start a paper like that.
I, myself am physicist and very open minded.
Remember, folks, that special relativity is a model. It was Einstein's dream to put everything material into some new kind of geometry. Bear in mind that lots of problems arise when you want to give physical (mechanical) explanations to a field theory that uses a completely different set of coordinats as used in classical mechanics. Eulerian coordinats arenot on the same footing as Langragian. It isnot a surprise though that Eulerian coordinats are used in SR-theory because it is heavily built upon Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. Lorentz was a great physicist but he didnot dare to give any mechanical interpretations to his own developped Lorentz transformations.
When I was in high school, I didnot need any "prooves" to proof mathematical properties. Mainly because I have a highly advanced visual math brain. My brain doesnot work sequential like it does for 90 pc of the population. I am a hollistic thinker. I think interconnected. I see it before my eyes.
The main problem in physics is they mostly cant draw any lines anymore between a mathematical formula and what really happens in reality. They are blindly walking in a labyrinth. When they encounter a mathematical equation, they threat it as reality. Sequential thinkers don't see any problems in this, but I do.
Waste of time.
Why waste time dealing with kooks?
Was Einstein a fake? No. Was the world "created" in seven days? No. Was the moon landing faked? No. Do shape-shifting reptiles secretly control the world? No.
o_O C'mon. Better things to do.
-GoblinJuice