Corrections To Relativity Foundations

[kuartus4]

Hello. My name is A.J and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on a book about general relativity that I found on the web. The book is written by a former professor of mathematics named Robert A. Herrmann. It is entitled,"Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Special and General Relativity -The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-clocks"

The author describes the book like this:

"It is actually dangerous for me to present the material that appears within this book due to the usual misunderstandings. Any scientist who claims that there are fundamental errors within the foundational methods used to obtain Einstein's General and Special Theories of relativity may be greatly ridiculed by his colleagues who do not read carefully. The reason for this has nothing to do with science but has everything to do with scientific careers, research grants and the like. Thousands upon thousands of individuals have built their entire professional careers upon these two theories and their ramifications. The theoretical science produced is claimed to be ``rational'' since it follows the patterns of a mathematical structure. As a mathematician who produces such structures, it is particular abhorrent to the scientific community if I make such a claim. Mathematicians seem to have an unsettling effect upon some members of the physical science community, especially when a mathematician delves into a natural science. After all, it was the mathematician Hilbert who, without any great effort, was actually the first to present, in a public form, the so-called Einstein gravitational field equations.

 

Now please read the following very carefully. The results presented here and in my published papers on this subject are not intended to denigrate those scientists who have, in the past, contributed to these Einstein theories or who continue to do so. The corrections I have made are in the foundations for these theories. The corrections are totally related to how the results are interpreted physically. These corrections do not contradict the results obtained when the Einstein approach and the language used are considered as models for behavior. These corrections are based upon newly discovered rules for rigorous infinitesimal modeling. These results may also be significant to those that hold to the belief that many events within the natural world are produced classically by a zero-point radiation field.

 

Many unqualified individuals continue to present their own alternatives to these Einstein theories, some claiming that the results are but an exercise in high-school algebra. Further, many of these alternate theories ignore or contradict quantum physical descriptions for natural-system behavior. Certain scientific groups tend to categorize any and all criticisms of the Einstein theories as coming from the unqualified and lump such criticisms into the same unworthy category. However, many highly qualified scientists of the past such as Builder, Fock, Ives and Dingle have made such claims relative to the foundations of these two theories. For Ives and Dingle, the fundamental approach was to assume that length contraction, and not time dilation, is a real natural effect and it is this that leads to the Einstein conclusions. In order to eliminate these criticisms, Lawden states the "modern" interpretation that length contraction has no physical meaning, and only "time dilation" is of significance. This modern assumption is certainly rather ad hoc in character. Further, many, many theory paradoxes still appear within the literature and are simply ignored by the scientific community. There is, however, a reason for this.

 

In 1992, the Einstein approach was shown explicitly to contain logical error. It was not possible to show this until many years after the theory was fully developed. Further, the original approach to Einstein's General Theory utilizes a "geometric language," a language that has been criticized by many including John Wheeler as the incorrect approach to analyze the fundamental behavior of universe in which we dwell. Einstein's theory is but a "model" for physical behavior, a model for physical behavior that does not, at present, foundationally correspond to objective reality. As Patton and Wheeler stated it, ". . . geometry is as far from giving an understanding of space as elasticity is from giving an understanding of a solid. . . . the basic structure is something deeper than geometry, that underlies both geometry and particles . . . what is the substance out of which the universe is made?"

 

Although Einstein used an explicit operational approach in his Special Theory, he was unable to use a mathematical approach that encapsulates his operational definitions since the actual mathematics was not discovered until 1961. Einstein and Hilbert used what was available to them at the time. Further, I respectfully submit that one of the greatest absurdities within modern science is that the concept of "time" is altered by physical behavior or physical entities as if "time" itself is a particle or field entity or the like. It is the measurement of this concept that is used to describe alterations in physical behavior. In this book, this absurdity has been eliminated by showing that one specific measurement of time is altered and, using this specific altered entity, all other appropriate behavioral alterations are predicted. Further, using the modern corrected theory of the infinitesimal and infinite numbers as discovered by Robinson, all logical errors and paradoxes are removed. Moreover, the recently discovered correct rules for infinitesimal modeling are used, and this eliminates the need for tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry. One important aspect of this new approach is that it does not in any manner contradict or eliminate any quantum physical theory. This new approach indirectly shows the existence of an additional electromagnetic interaction with a substratum composed of entities from the nonstandard physical world; a "world" that is distinct from what one defines as our natural world. This is a portion of a substratum, a subquantum region, "below" the vacuum of particle physics that is required for most modern quantum physical theories.

 

Some interesting results produced by this new investigation are (1) these theories are relative to electromagnetic properties only. (2) All alterations in natural system behavior rigorously predicted by these theories would indirectly indicate an electromagnetic interaction is taking place. (3) These theories need not apply under all physical conditions. (4) The non-rigorous methods used to establish the universal constancy of a "speed for electromagnetic informational transmissions" need not hold unless a specific rigorous derivation, not using the "observer" notion, is applied."

 

Here is the link where the book in its entirety can found:

http://www.raherrmann.com/cont4.htm

 

What is the opinion of the experts here concerning this approach?

Any thoughts or comments are very much appreciated.

Thank you.

[coldcreation]

[...] This new approach indirectly shows the existence of an additional electromagnetic interaction with a substratum composed of entities from the nonstandard physical world; a "world" that is distinct from what one defines as our natural world. This is a portion of a substratum, a subquantum region, "below" the vacuum of particle physics that is required for most modern quantum physical theories. [...]

 

I could be mistaken, but it seems as if the author mentioned above is a perfect candidate for the Templeton Prize.

 

He bridges the gap between sense and nonsense.

 

 

EDIT-> According to this source, the author mentioned above is a creationist.

 

And according to this source, the author invented what he calls, General intelligent design (i.e., nonsense).

 

Confirmed. His own website states: "the described Biblical attributes and behavior of God are scientifically rational in content. Further, the modeled creationary processes can be intuitively described as transforming God's thoughts into physical reality."

 

 

 

Nonsense!

 

 

 

 

CC

Edited June 23, 2012 by coldcreation

[kuartus4]

So is that it? Because he is a creationist that means he is wrong about everything?

I dont care if he is a creationist or a democrat or whatever, I wanna know if there is anything behind his nonstandard analysis approach to relativity. Thats why I posted.

I didnt post this to find out the authors religious views. Thats a non sequitur. Please stay on topic.

[LaurieAG]

Hi kuartus4,

 

So is that it? Because he is a creationist that means he is wrong about everything?

Interesting stuff. Using an infinitessimal light clock to introduce absolute Newtonian time and remove i was a neat and fresh approach but 'reinforcing' the status quo by trivialising it to be dependent on masked time axis mechanics is a bit old hat around here.

 

It would be interesting to see where this type of approach really went.

Edited June 29, 2012 by LaurieAG

[coldcreation]

So is that it? Because he is a creationist that means he is wrong about everything?

I dont care if he is a creationist or a democrat or whatever, I wanna know if there is anything behind his nonstandard analysis approach to relativity. Thats why I posted.

I didnt post this to find out the authors religious views. Thats a non sequitur. Please stay on topic.

 

In the OP you posted a description of a book by the self-proclaimed creationist (a 1996 Templeton Prize Nominee) Robert A. Herrmann. His General Intelligent Design Theory (not to be confused with Einstein's General relativity theory) is an attempt to "transform God's thoughts into physical reality". His interpretation "shows that it is rational to assume that all physical-system behavior as investigated by science-communities is designed or controlled by intelligent agency." This, so the author claims, "is the first general solution to the problem of intelligent design." (Source: the author's professional biography)

 

His goal is that theological concepts be investigated by means of the scientific method. Although Dr. Herrmann's techniques can be applied to all major theological doctrine, he chose to apply them to the Bible. Herrmann claims to have constructed a "mathematical structure that predicts and, hence, models scientifically all of the Godhead attributes described within the Bible". His objective is to increase our understanding of "God's created visible and invisible kingdoms." (Source)

 

 

This is what lurks behind his nonstandard approach to relativity.

The authors religious views (inseparable from his scientific views) are thus on topic, not off-topic as you claim.

 

 

Indeed, the authors musings are "relative only to effects within an empty universe." But this universe is obviously not empty. Furthermore, he writes: "The effects can only be properly measured over local regions where the gravitational potential is considered to be constant and can, thus, be “factored,” so to speak, from the measurements. Measurements that might be taken by what could be considered as “large light-clocks” are not analyzed and could give different results. Predictions associated with ST for all of the alterations are based entirely upon very local measurements and uniform relative velocity. These predictions become less accurate when these conditions are altered." (Source)

 

And the author writes: "...the results in this book do not overthrow the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity. What has been altered is the very basic interpretation and foundations of the Einsteinian theory."

 

Indeed, his secular and theological interpretations are nonstandard.

 

In his article, God, as He is Biblically described, is a scientifically rational concept, the author gives the reasons why it is important that the rationality of this concept be established. "This significant result should be known by all of humankind. (This is a specific example of modern mathematical philosophy.) This paper defines the notion of the mathematical infinite and shows that, "although the strength of God's comparative attributes and intelligence can be modeled mathematically, the mathematics apparently cannot model an ultimate (i.e. absolute) bound for such strengths. The mathematics does imply that accepting such an ultimate bound is a rational hypothesis."

 

During Creation Day-Four, the author writes, "there is a problem with scientifically relating starlight to the Biblical time-frame." In this article are two papers where the author claims to solve this starlight and time problem.

 

 

 

Nonsence.

 

 

CC

Edited June 30, 2012 by coldcreation

[kuartus4]

In the OP you posted a description of a book by the self-proclaimed creationist (a 1996 Templeton Prize Nominee) Robert A. Herrmann. His General Intelligent Design Theory (not to be confused with Einstein's General relativity theory) is an attempt to "transform God's thoughts into physical reality". His interpretation "shows that it is rational to assume that all physical-system behavior as investigated by science-communities is designed or controlled by intelligent agency." This, so the author claims, "is the first general solution to the problem of intelligent design." (Source: the author's professional biography)

 

His goal is that theological concepts be investigated by means of the scientific method. Although Dr. Herrmann's techniques can be applied to all major theological doctrine, he chose to apply them to the Bible. Herrmann constructed a mathematical structure that predicts and, hence, models scientifically all of the Godhead attributes described within the Bible. His objective is to increase our understanding of "God's created visible and invisible kingdoms." (Source)

 

 

This is what lurks behind his nonstandard approach to relativity.

The authors religious views (inseparable from his scientific views) are thus on topic, not off-topic as you claim.

 

 

Indeed, the authors musings are "relative only to effects within an empty universe." But this universe is obviously not empty. Furthermore, he writes: "The effects can only be properly measured over local regions where the gravitational potential is considered to be constant and can, thus, be “factored,” so to speak, from the measurements. Measurements that might be taken by what could be considered as “large light-clocks” are not analyzed and could give different results. Predictions associated with ST for all of the alterations are based entirely upon very local measurements and uniform relative velocity. These predictions become less accurate when these conditions are altered." (Source)

 

And the author writes: "...the results in this book do not overthrow the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity. What has been altered is the very basic interpretation and foundations of the Einsteinian theory."

 

Indeed, his secular and theological interpretations are nonstandard.

 

In his article, God, as He is Biblically described, is a scientifically rational concept, the author gives the reasons why it is important that the rationality of this concept be established. "This significant result should be known by all of humankind. (This is a specific example of modern mathematical philosophy.) This paper defines the notion of the mathematical infinite and shows that, "although the strength of God's comparative attributes and intelligence can be modeled mathematically, the mathematics apparently cannot model an ultimate (i.e. absolute) bound for such strengths. The mathematics does imply that accepting such an ultimate bound is a rational hypothesis."

 

During Creation Day-Four, the author writes, "there is a problem with scientifically relating starlight to the Biblical time-frame." In this article are two papers where the author claims to solve this starlight and time problem.

 

 

 

Nonsence.

 

 

CC

 

Look, if his theory is wrong then it will be wrong on its own merits, not on whether he is a creationist or what views the author holds on science and theology. Its like saying that newtons laws of motions are wrong just because he was a creationist. They might be wrong(or at best useful approximations for non relativistic velocities) but they will be wrong on their own, not because of the particular philosophy held by their discoverer.

[coldcreation]

Look, if his theory is wrong then it will be wrong on its own merits, not on whether he is a creationist or what views the author holds on science and theology. Its like saying that newtons laws of motions are wrong just because he was a creationist. They might be wrong(or at best useful approximations for non relativistic velocities) but they will be wrong on their own, not because of the particular philosophy held by their discoverer.

 

Newton description of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion was a scientific view of the physical universe. He showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws; removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution. His objective was to describe the natural world.

 

The author of the book you mention in the OP has a quite different agenda: to justify "scientifically" the "Godhead attributes described within the Bible". His objective is to "increase our understanding of God's created visible and invisible kingdoms." I.e., nonsense.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

CC

[Little Bang]

Until someone can explain the nuts and bolts of a field I can't rule out the possibility of a God.

[kuartus4]

Newton description of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion was a scientific view of the physical universe. He showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws; removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution. His objective was to describe the natural world.

 

The author of the book you mention in the OP has a quite different agenda: to justify "scientifically" the "Godhead attributes described within the Bible". His objective is to "increase our understanding of God's created visible and invisible kingdoms." I.e., nonsense.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

CC

 

What I see is that the paper I quoted in the O.P has nothing to do with the authors efforts to scientifically model the attributes in the bible. This is just a red herring. The paper I referenced deals with relativity, not God, not the bible, RELATIVITY. You obviously disagree with the authors religious views, yet thats not what my post is about.

[coldcreation]

What I see is that the paper I quoted in the O.P has nothing to do with the authors efforts to scientifically model the attributes in the bible. This is just a red herring. The paper I referenced deals with relativity, not God, not the bible, RELATIVITY. You obviously disagree with the authors religious views, yet thats not what my post is about.

 

The results in this book, according to the author himself "do not overthrow the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity". The only thing he claims has been altered is "the very basic interpretation and foundations of the Einsteinian theory." What the author claims is being established is that "the language of Riemannian geometry is not the language of reality." (He prefers Euclidean geometry, absolute space and absolute time). He concludes that all of the consequences of the Einsteinian theory that apply to an actual physical universe should be interpreted in terms of infinitesimal light clocks." (Source) But these produce only local effects, based on observations by a "privileged observer". His argument is that gravitational redshift and time dilation ("alterations in certain behavior of the natural process called the propagation of electromagnetic radiation") can best be comprehended by introducing his "nonstandard physical world (NSP-world) model". His hope is that a non-standard analysis "resolves" or otherwise changes something within the framework of relativity. But it does not. Non-standard analysis is simply an alternative means of expressing exactly the same ideas as does standard analysis. The fact that he gets a different result from Einstein is proof enough that he made a mistake (or several mistakes) somewhere in his work.

 

His work bares all the hallmarks of a crank or crackpot (religious or not): he holds an unshakable belief that most of his contemporaries consider to be false; his belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. He characteristically dismisses all evidence or arguments which contradict his own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task. He is impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

 

Although his beliefs (regarding Einstein's relativity, i.e., independent of his promotion of religious views) seem ridiculous to experts in the field, he appears to have been successful in convincing non-experts of his views (such as those at the Templeton Foundation).

 

 

 

CC

Edited June 30, 2012 by coldcreation

[Pmb]

Hello. My name is A.J and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on a book about general relativity that I found on the web. The book is written by a former professor of mathematics named Robert A. Herrmann. It is entitled,"Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Special and General Relativity -The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-clocks"

The author describes the book like this:

"It is actually dangerous for me to present the material that appears within this book due to the usual misunderstandings.

 

Whenever an author starts off his book by saying that he's in danger for saying what he says in the book then you know the author is a crackpot.

 

Any scientist who claims that there are fundamental errors within the foundational methods used to obtain Einstein's General and Special Theories of relativity may be greatly ridiculed by his colleagues who do not read carefully.

That's nonsense. People aren't ridiculed if the argument is a cogent one. Einstein himself presented a theory which disagreed with very important parts of physics such as the relativity if space and time, and he sure wasn't ridiculed. If a reader doesn't finish what he's reading then there's usually a good reason for it.

 

The reason for this has nothing to do with science but has everything to do with scientific careers, research grants and the like. Thousands upon thousands of individuals have built their entire professional careers upon these two theories and their ramifications.

That's nonsense. If someone proved relativitt wrong then they wouldn't be shunned. Instead they'd be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.

 

What is the opinion of the experts here concerning this approach?

Any thoughts or comments are very much appreciated.

Thank you.

Since the author sounds like a crackpot by his paranoia I'm not even inclined to read it. There is much much more other stuff on my platter to read and I see no reason why his should take president over that.

[Aethelwulf]

Hello. My name is A.J and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on a book about general relativity that I found on the web. The book is written by a former professor of mathematics named Robert A. Herrmann. It is entitled,"Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Special and General Relativity -The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-clocks"

The author describes the book like this:

"It is actually dangerous for me to present the material that appears within this book due to the usual misunderstandings. Any scientist who claims that there are fundamental errors within the foundational methods used to obtain Einstein's General and Special Theories of relativity may be greatly ridiculed by his colleagues who do not read carefully. The reason for this has nothing to do with science but has everything to do with scientific careers, research grants and the like. Thousands upon thousands of individuals have built their entire professional careers upon these two theories and their ramifications. The theoretical science produced is claimed to be ``rational'' since it follows the patterns of a mathematical structure. As a mathematician who produces such structures, it is particular abhorrent to the scientific community if I make such a claim. Mathematicians seem to have an unsettling effect upon some members of the physical science community, especially when a mathematician delves into a natural science. After all, it was the mathematician Hilbert who, without any great effort, was actually the first to present, in a public form, the so-called Einstein gravitational field equations.

 

Now please read the following very carefully. The results presented here and in my published papers on this subject are not intended to denigrate those scientists who have, in the past, contributed to these Einstein theories or who continue to do so. The corrections I have made are in the foundations for these theories. The corrections are totally related to how the results are interpreted physically. These corrections do not contradict the results obtained when the Einstein approach and the language used are considered as models for behavior. These corrections are based upon newly discovered rules for rigorous infinitesimal modeling. These results may also be significant to those that hold to the belief that many events within the natural world are produced classically by a zero-point radiation field.

 

Many unqualified individuals continue to present their own alternatives to these Einstein theories, some claiming that the results are but an exercise in high-school algebra. Further, many of these alternate theories ignore or contradict quantum physical descriptions for natural-system behavior. Certain scientific groups tend to categorize any and all criticisms of the Einstein theories as coming from the unqualified and lump such criticisms into the same unworthy category. However, many highly qualified scientists of the past such as Builder, Fock, Ives and Dingle have made such claims relative to the foundations of these two theories. For Ives and Dingle, the fundamental approach was to assume that length contraction, and not time dilation, is a real natural effect and it is this that leads to the Einstein conclusions. In order to eliminate these criticisms, Lawden states the "modern" interpretation that length contraction has no physical meaning, and only "time dilation" is of significance. This modern assumption is certainly rather ad hoc in character. Further, many, many theory paradoxes still appear within the literature and are simply ignored by the scientific community. There is, however, a reason for this.

 

In 1992, the Einstein approach was shown explicitly to contain logical error. It was not possible to show this until many years after the theory was fully developed. Further, the original approach to Einstein's General Theory utilizes a "geometric language," a language that has been criticized by many including John Wheeler as the incorrect approach to analyze the fundamental behavior of universe in which we dwell. Einstein's theory is but a "model" for physical behavior, a model for physical behavior that does not, at present, foundationally correspond to objective reality. As Patton and Wheeler stated it, ". . . geometry is as far from giving an understanding of space as elasticity is from giving an understanding of a solid. . . . the basic structure is something deeper than geometry, that underlies both geometry and particles . . . what is the substance out of which the universe is made?"

 

Although Einstein used an explicit operational approach in his Special Theory, he was unable to use a mathematical approach that encapsulates his operational definitions since the actual mathematics was not discovered until 1961. Einstein and Hilbert used what was available to them at the time. Further, I respectfully submit that one of the greatest absurdities within modern science is that the concept of "time" is altered by physical behavior or physical entities as if "time" itself is a particle or field entity or the like. It is the measurement of this concept that is used to describe alterations in physical behavior. In this book, this absurdity has been eliminated by showing that one specific measurement of time is altered and, using this specific altered entity, all other appropriate behavioral alterations are predicted. Further, using the modern corrected theory of the infinitesimal and infinite numbers as discovered by Robinson, all logical errors and paradoxes are removed. Moreover, the recently discovered correct rules for infinitesimal modeling are used, and this eliminates the need for tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry. One important aspect of this new approach is that it does not in any manner contradict or eliminate any quantum physical theory. This new approach indirectly shows the existence of an additional electromagnetic interaction with a substratum composed of entities from the nonstandard physical world; a "world" that is distinct from what one defines as our natural world. This is a portion of a substratum, a subquantum region, "below" the vacuum of particle physics that is required for most modern quantum physical theories.

 

Some interesting results produced by this new investigation are (1) these theories are relative to electromagnetic properties only. (2) All alterations in natural system behavior rigorously predicted by these theories would indirectly indicate an electromagnetic interaction is taking place. (3) These theories need not apply under all physical conditions. (4) The non-rigorous methods used to establish the universal constancy of a "speed for electromagnetic informational transmissions" need not hold unless a specific rigorous derivation, not using the "observer" notion, is applied."

 

Here is the link where the book in its entirety can found:

http://www.raherrmann.com/cont4.htm

 

What is the opinion of the experts here concerning this approach?

Any thoughts or comments are very much appreciated.

Thank you.

 

AJ... who?

 

Alan Johnson maybe?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Aethelwulf