Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Don't Feel Bad.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on August 7, 2002 21:26:20 UTC

Hi Aurino,

No, I don't think you have been hard on me. I think you still misunderstand some of the things I say. I would love to be able to talk to Einstein as I think he was a brilliant mind. I was very sorry when he died because, when I was young, I actually had hopes of talking to him some day. I still think he would have seen what I am talking about, just as I firmly believe Newton would have understood the problem with time uncovered by Maxwell's equation.

Yes, my problem is more with Einstenians than with Einstein even though I think Einstein was the basic cause of the problem.

Aurino: What I gathered from Einstein is that, like the rest of us, he doesn't claim to know what time is. All he did was find a way to reconcile the principle of relativity with the constant speed of light, and that he did quite brilliantly.

Boy, it sure gets me that so many people will admit that they don't know what time is while at exactly the same time they will not admit any possibility of error in their use of the concept. I personally think Einstein would have at least listened.

Aurino: He, and any sensible physicist as far as I can see, is not concerned about "what it is" that clocks measure, the only meaningful issue is what should we expect to read under specific conditions. As Bruce says, if Einstein made a mistake and you know what that is, you should be able to propose an experiment in which clocks won't read what Einstein says they're supposed to read.

All I am saying is that they should be concerned as a little thought results in another possibility which is much simpler than Einstein's presentation, fulfills all the needs of Einstein's work and has none of the difficulties extant in Einstein's work. All I am saying about Einstein's using time as one of his coordinates is that it has lead all the physicists to overlook the geometry I have discovered. In fact, it has prevented them from even looking at it. They will all admit that clocks always measure what Bruce calls "watch time" which is exactly identical to the invariant interval along their space time path. But none of them will even look at the idea of defining clocks as measuring that: i.e. using the relativistic transformation to obtain time in any given frame (the reverse of the standard procedure)! No mathematical difference, just a difference in definition which leads to a rather different geometry. Using what clocks measure as one of the coordinates instead of using time!

Bruce and you want a physical experiment which yields problems with Einstein's relativity? They are right in front of the whole physics community; but they are convinced they will soon solve them which means the couldn't possibly be real problems. One, counter to 5,000 years of physical observation, Einstein's theory includes the possibility of time travel. Serious scientists are, at this very moment giving serious thought to that issue.

Second, Einstein's geometry contains paths which cannot be followed by any material object. I say if they cannot be space time paths of interaction, why are they included? If one uses Einstein's geometry, you must add the constraint that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That is why serious scientists are looking for tacheons (things which travel faster than light) in spite of some serious logical flaws in the behavior of such entities.

Third, Bell's paradox which has been settled in favor of Quantum mechanics, indicating something is wrong with Einstein's relativity (or information is transmitted faster than light). Finally, the issue of quantum gravity! That solution has been on the horizon for 30 years at least. Even at this very moment they say they have it (except for a few minor problems).

Aurino: As far as physics is concerned, that is the end of the story.

Yeh, I know! More epicycles will take care of everything.

Aurino: I think the problem is with the people who parrot about physics without understanding it.

And I think a lot of those people are professional physicists.

As a final comment on experimental differences, let me call your attention to Part III of Chapter 3 (particularly equations 3.29 and 3.32); the only place where my deductions differ from Einstein's. I have not made much of those differences because I believe them to be beneath the accuracy of experimental measure and the significant possibility that I have made an error in my mathematics since no one has ever checked that math.

Aurino: If for nothing else, a lot of people understand Einstein well enough to run experiments that validate his theory, while your ideas nobody even knows what they are about.
That is purely because no one with sufficient education has taken the trouble to look at them. A lot of scientists probably understood epicycles better than calculus before Newton too.

Finally, the relative simultaneity Einstein is talking about is an explanation of the common idea of simultaneity and not a very useful concept in the relativistic area. It certainly does not transform in a covariant way and is in direct conflict with the idea of placing physical meaning on the comment "simultaneous collapse of the wave function".

Have fun - Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins