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."
Its easy to get published
Thats really not true, its easy to get published as usually there will be a journal that will publish most work providing it meets a minimum standard, for instance correct mathematics and correct use of the basic physics the theory relies upon.
It might not get in "nature" initially but after getting in one it will find its way into better ones. Einstein is the perfect example of this he wasn't liked by most of the physics community but his work came out.
The simple explanation is 97% of applications are from loonys that can't add or understand the theory their theory is based on.
Is John Farrell a fake?
"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell.
I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " - Einstein.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?
It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.
"Scientific method" ?
John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist, and it is apparent in the tone of his writing.
wrong
I think your refering to a frequency shift coming from the wave nature of light, it doesn't correspond to a change in the velocity of the wave. It comes straight out of the equations without any extra variables being added.
Its taught in first year physics at degree.
Physicists Abhor the Mathematization of Physics
Relativity isn't wrong but it is an affront to common sense because physicists prefer Einstein's barbaric approach to the subject, which is mystical and unenlightened when compared to modern standards.
Newton only
Relativity and quantum mechanics are both flawed and should be dropped immediately. Time does not freeze at photons. They behave with optical precision and snap off when the electron drops. This is a subatomic process generating a constant speed, with varying dipole spin.
Big bang and expanding universe? What else could be happening to the photons instead?
Never build a skyscraper of faulty foundations or go looking for something. Always ask what is happeinig and why instead.
Newton only
So is Newtonian theory. In fact, it's MORE wrong than Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. It's predictions are worse. For one thing, Newtonian theory can never predict quantum encryption, which was proven to work experimentally, at a semi-practical level as well. By your logic, Newtonian theory should also be dropped.
Think of it this way, relativity is a correction on Newton. While it might not be entirely correct, it gives better and more accurate predictions. Anything that hopes to replace relativity needs to give even more accurate predictions. Chances are, it will be a correction on Einstein, just like how Einstein is a correction of Newton.
By the way, the world spin does not refer to particle really spinning, like how colours of quark are not referring to their actual colours.
time does not freeze at photons
Actually in the frame of reference of photons it should according to relativity, how do you know that it doesn't? Have you ever moved at the speed of light upon the back of a photon, because thats the only way it can be measured.
However it has been measured on pretty much everything eles traveling at speeds less than that of the speed of light to incredible accuracy.
"They behave with optical precision and snap off when the electron drops. This is a subatomic process generating a constant speed, with varying dipole spin." The electron isn't moving at the speed of light and so isn't time dilated to the same extent as the photon, remember its time from the view of the photon out that appears dilated TO THE PHOTON, not us, whilst the photon appears dilated to us, this wouldn't affect the electron.
Also they don't "snap off" they are created according the Maxwell-boltzmann wave equations and the dynamics of electrons, they wern't something that was there but suddenly became free.
"Never build a skyscraper of faulty foundations or go looking for something."
I don't think you've show that there are any faulty foundations.
demolishing space-time
Kepler (demolish) Vs Einstein's
Areal velocity is constant: r² θ' =h Kepler's Law
h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
r² θ'= h = S² w'
Replace r with S = r exp (ỉ wt); h = [r² Exp (2iwt)] w'
w' = (h/r²) exp [-2(i wt)]
w'= (h/r²) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = (h/r²) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]
w' = w'(x) + ỉ w'(y) ; w'(x) = (h/r²) [ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
w'(x) – (h/r²) = - 2(h/r²)sine²(wt) = - 2(h/r²)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt
(h/ r²)(Perihelion/Periastron)= [2πa.a√ (1-ε²)]/Ta² (1-ε) ²= [2π√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²
Δ w' = [w'(x) – h/r²] = -4π {[√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² radian per second
Δ w" = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²]/(1-ε)²} (v/c)² seconds of arc per century
This Kepler's Equation solves all the problems Einstein and all physicists could not solve
The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 - ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²- --.) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4) v=√ [G m M / (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<
Say No to Einstein
Kepler (demolish) Vs Einstein's
Areal velocity is constant: r² θ' =h Kepler's Law
h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
r² θ'= h = S² w'
Replace r with S = r exp (ỉ wt); h = [r² Exp (2iwt)] w'
w' = (h/r²) exp [-2(i wt)]
w'= (h/r²) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = (h/r²) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]
w' = w'(x) + ỉ w'(y) ; w'(x) = (h/r²) [ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
w'(x) – (h/r²) = - 2(h/r²)sine²(wt) = - 2(h/r²)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt
(h/ r²)(Perihelion/Periastron)= [2πa.a√ (1-ε²)]/Ta² (1-ε) ²= [2π√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²
Δ w' = [w'(x) – h/r²] = -4π {[√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² radian per second
Δ w" = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²]/(1-ε)²} (v/c)² seconds of arc per century
This Kepler's Equation solves all the problems Einstein and all physicists could not solve
The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 - ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²- --.) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4) v=√ [G m M / (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<
End of space-time DI Her solution
Einstein's Nemesis: DI Her Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution
The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists could not solve
This is the solution to the "Quarter of a century" Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney
Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics
For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton's equation and time dependent Kepler's equation that accounts for Quantum - relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is
Universal- Mechanics
All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location
r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product
S = m r; State = mass x location
P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment
= change of location + change of mass
= m v + m' r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m' = mass change rate
F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r
= m γ + 2m'v +m"r; γ = acceleration; m'' = mass acceleration rate
In polar coordinates system
r = r r(1) ;v = r' r(1) + r θ' θ(1) ; γ = (r" - rθ'²)r(1) + (2r'θ' + rθ")θ(1)
F = m[(r"-rθ'²)r(1) + (2r'θ' + rθ")θ(1)] + 2m'[r'r(1) + rθ'θ(1)] + (m"r) r(1)
F = [d²(m r)/dt² - (m r)θ'²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ')/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)
d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ'² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ')/d t = 0
Let m =constant: M=constant
d²r/dt² - r θ'²=-GM/r² ------ I
d(r²θ')/d t = 0 -----------------II
r²θ'=h = constant -------------- II
r = 1/u; r' = -u'/u² = - r²u' = - r²θ'(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)
d (r²θ')/d t = 2rr'θ' + r²θ" = 0 r" = - h d/d t (du/d θ) = - h θ'(d²u/d θ²) = - (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)
[- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] - r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²
2(r'/r) = - (θ"/θ') = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)] - h²u² (d²u/dθ²) - h²u³ = -GMu²
d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²
r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)] u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)
r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]
r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ) ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM
r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential
r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas' Solution
If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:
r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]
θ'(r, t) = θ'[r(θ,0), 0] Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]}
h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)
θ' (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) = 2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²
θ' (0,t) = θ'(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)
θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ'(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]
θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,t)(x) + θ'(0,t)(y); θ'(0,t)(x) = θ'(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
θ'(0,t)(x) – θ'(0,0) = - 2θ'(0,0)sine²(wt) = - 2θ'(0,0)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt; c=light speed
Δ θ' = [θ'(0, t) - θ'(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second
{(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century)
Δ θ' = [-720x36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century
This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein's space-jail of time
The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 - ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²---) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<