Jump to content
Science Forums

The Crank Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong?


Recommended Posts

So this is a serious question, why does every crank that comes on the forum always say that Einstein is wrong, what is the crank obsession with Einstein? Why don't they ever say "Quantum Mechanics is Wrong" or "String Theory is Wrong" , why is it always Einstein that they think is wrong? Are Einstein's Equations really that hard to understand that the cranks always get tripped up on them? Secondly, is it a deep routed part of the crank psyche that wants to be smarter than Einstein since often he is associated with being a Genius? Why not someone else ever?

 

einstein.jpg

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein is probably wrong on all sorts of things, for me it is not about a person (who ever they are). 

 

The question should be "Is relativity correct as far as we can determine?" the answer to that is of course YES, there is something 'relative' going on with space and with time.

 

Now to get into more detail about the 'correctness' of relativity, It could well be the case that space is not 'curved or warped' but still space and time have relative properties, in that case you could say that relativity is correct (things are relative), but the geometrical treatment and understanding of relativity 'over burdened' by putting it into a geometrical context.

 

But as far as clocks ticking at different rates, Gravitational shift, Lensing and the other objective tests of "things are relative in space and time", then you have to accept that relativity is correct.

 

The Scientific Method:

(Richard Feynman)

 

GUESS > Calculate the consequences > Compare with nature (by observation/experiment)

 

"If it wrong, it's wrong" That is Feynman is saying if your consequences do not match with nature it is WRONG. 

The process of doing science is to show that something is WRONG, if you cannot show that it is wrong it is considered to be right.

 

The process of doing science is therefore the process of trying to make arguments and observations that put a particular theory to the test. 

 

You can't do this process hypothetically, that is, you can't say "Einstein (relativity) is wrong because it breaks down in a black hole". 

Unless you can actually, physically, observationally confirm that your concept of 'in a black hole' is correct, you CANNOT make any claim that "therefore Einstein/relativity is wrong".

 

Quantum Mechanics and String Theory:

 

For me, in quantum mechanics there is no wrong, or right, I actually find it hard to consider them even as scientific theories, they do not really fit the requirements for a theory and certainly do not follow the principles of the scientific method.

 

In my opinion both QM and ST are both mathematical fantasy excursions, they are trying to develop mathematical constructs to try to describe nature, using the fundamentals of math, and not the fundamentals of nature.

 

You can get a feel for this idea, if you consider the very few achievements and advancements in engineering and knowledge in general that quantum mechanics has achieved. Almost zero, if not zero.. 

 

TL;DR Space and time ARE relativity, Quantum mechanics and String Theory barely if at all can be considered a theory at all (and probably not even science!).

 

(I hope I stir a hornets nest :D)

Link to post
Share on other sites

mm, i can only speak for myself, but i more commonly say warp space doesn't make sense.

i focus on Einstein when talking about that because he's the person generally associated with it.

 

I'm with you on that Phillip, curved or warped space does not make sense to me either. And probably like you that does not mean I don't understand the concept, I really struggled to justify space and time as curved or warped, then I came to the conclusion that space and time is not geometrical in nature at all. 

 

That means space is not 3 dimensional !! (you can have shapes in space, but space itself does not have a shape).

 

I consider space as 1 dimension, and like a 'normal' dimension a dimension is a length, when I ask you what are the dimensions of your room, you give me lengths. 

Space has a single, scalar dimension property of LENGTH, we all know that, we can understand that 'distance' is length and it is the length of space.

 

We also know what the only time we are aware of is the LENGTH of time that is a function of the length of space property (Space length based time... SPACETIME).

 

One day is the length of space (and therefore time) that it takes for a point on the earth to move in one rotation.

One year is the length of space it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

 

The length of 1 hour is the length of space it takes for the hour hand of a clock to go some distance in SPACE.

 

Space is flat (the 'flatness problem'), in fact it is not geometrical in nature.

 

You can consider it like being a color space has a property the same as a color has a property, for a color it is it's color, for space it is it's length.

You can have shapes (a geometry) in any color, but a color does not have a geometry. 

 

What is relative about relativity is the relative length of the observer and the observed, it's the relative lengths (or velocity thought that length), it is not about the relative positions of the reference frames. 

 

Warped and curved space is trying to justify those differences in the paths between the two relative points, my 1 dimension model just considered the different lengths in a 1 dimensional space length and 1 dimensional time length that is derived from the space length dimension (is emergent).

 

I'm really need to do a full post on this here, so not to hijack someone else's thread.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is a serious question, why does every crank that comes on the forum always say that Einstein is wrong, what is the crank obsession with Einstein? Why don't they ever say "Quantum Mechanics is Wrong" or "String Theory is Wrong" , why is it always Einstein that they think is wrong? Are Einstein's Equations really that hard to understand that the cranks always get tripped up on them? Secondly, is it a deep routed part of the crank psyche that wants to be smarter than Einstein since often he is associated with being a Genius? Why not someone else ever?

 

 

 

Einstein is almost the same to physics cranks as Everest is to mountain climbers. I say almost because climbing Everest will generate some respect from fellow mountain climbers but challenging Einstein with crank physics will only result in pointing and laughing (by those who actually understand SR and GR), and rightfully so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on that Phillip, curved or warped space does not make sense to me either. And probably like you that does not mean I don't understand the concept, I really struggled to justify space and time as curved or warped, then I came to the conclusion that space and time is not geometrical in nature at all. 

 

That means space is not 3 dimensional !! (you can have shapes in space, but space itself does not have a shape).

 

I consider space as 1 dimension, and like a 'normal' dimension a dimension is a length, when I ask you what are the dimensions of your room, you give me lengths. 

Space has a single, scalar dimension property of LENGTH, we all know that, we can understand that 'distance' is length and it is the length of space.

 

We also know what the only time we are aware of is the LENGTH of time that is a function of the length of space property (Space length based time... SPACETIME).

 

One day is the length of space (and therefore time) that it takes for a point on the earth to move in one rotation.

One year is the length of space it takes for the earth to go around the sun.

 

The length of 1 hour is the length of space it takes for the hour hand of a clock to go some distance in SPACE.

 

Space is flat (the 'flatness problem'), in fact it is not geometrical in nature.

 

You can consider it like being a color space has a property the same as a color has a property, for a color it is it's color, for space it is it's length.

You can have shapes (a geometry) in any color, but a color does not have a geometry. 

 

What is relative about relativity is the relative length of the observer and the observed, it's the relative lengths (or velocity thought that length), it is not about the relative positions of the reference frames. 

 

Warped and curved space is trying to justify those differences in the paths between the two relative points, my 1 dimension model just considered the different lengths in a 1 dimensional space length and 1 dimensional time length that is derived from the space length dimension (is emergent).

 

I'm really need to do a full post on this here, so not to hijack someone else's thread.. 

 

Explain how do you fit 3-D objects into a 1-D space?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain how do you fit 3-D objects into a 1-D space?

 

Great question, and it's a conceptional thing that took me awhile to get around. (it's also not so easy for me to articulate sometimes). (this needs a new post sorry for hijacking).

 

Put simply at first, you can put 3-D objects in 1-D space with the dimension of that 1-D space is its length.

 

So I am considering 'dimension' to be the property of any points in space as its LENGTH property at that point. 

 

This is opposed to X,Y,Z dimensions that are essentially an address location of a point in space relative to some other location, latitude, longitude and altitude.

 

So 3-D is a mathematical 3D Array (geometrical) construct making the 3 spatial dimensions directions.

 

So what I am doing is not considering the relative positions (the address), But the relative LENGTH value of that point in space (no matter how you locate or address that point in space).

 

So as not to hijack this thread, a 3-D requires a length of space to exist in, it is the object that is geometrical, not the space that the object exists in.

 

Consider space length as a property like a color, the color itself does not have a shape (or an address), but 3D objects can be in that color. The property of space is it's length, that length property emerges from matter. I'm going to drop my description soon.. 

 

Thanks for the question:

Link to post
Share on other sites

my problem with warped space as gravity is it would have to be warped on every point on earth and in every dimension.

what that would even look like, let alone how to allow orbits, i have no idea.

 

I suspect you may be hung up on that much touted ball-on-rubber-sheet analogy. It may help to try thinking of the curvature of space in all dimensions as being spherical.

 

It is because space is curved (warped) that orbits are possible.

 

1*FgVuS-3FJxfuq90HfGv4LA.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question, 

So as not to hijack this thread, a 3-D requires a length of space to exist in, it is the object that is geometrical, not the space that the object exists in.

 

Consider space length as a property like a color, the color itself does not have a shape (or an address), but 3D objects can be in that color. The property of space is it's length, that length property emerges from matter. I'm going to drop my description soon.. 

 

Thanks for the question:

 

Great questions deserve great answers.

 

Sorry, using color as an analog for a dimension just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

A 1-D length cannot contain a 3-D object, no matter how you spin it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Mutex;

 

In my opinion both QM and ST are both mathematical fantasy excursions, they are trying to develop mathematical constructs to try to describe nature, using the fundamentals of math, and not the fundamentals of nature.

 

 

All theories are representational, using mental constructs that mimic the behavior of the physical universe. Mathematics is the language used for measurement, the verification tool of science.

Human thought interprets the behavior in terms of ideas (supposedly) already understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein developed SR without the need of Lorentz's ether.


In GR, gravitational fields would require an ether, different from that of Lorentz.


Gravitation depended on the distribution of matter, but its effect extends far beyond the boundary of a massive object M. I.e., the field contains energy from M, via an unknown process. Wherever an object m is placed in the g-field, the acceleration is directed toward the center of mass of M. The continuous redirecting of m can be interpreted AS IF moving in a curved space, vs a curved path in space.


Revisiting the train scenario, the passenger drops an object s, which falls vertically to the floor, while a person on the platform sees s fall in a curve to the floor.


How can s simultaneously have two different trajectories?


It can't, but there can be two different perceptions of the motion of s.


Perception is what the mind thinks it observes.


Trajectories, orbits, 4-vectors, all geometric forms are imaginary.


_____________________________


 


Length is a vector, with magnitude and direction.


Spatial distance is/must be relative to an object.


We can only measure differences. The length of an object is the difference between the location of one end and the location of the other end, relative to a reference.


Three independent directions are sufficient to assign a position of an object's center of mass, without understanding why.


From the beginning of humanity, 'time' was a measure of motion. In SR the 'time' axis is ct, a distance, thanks to Minkowski.


_____________________________


Why were people still debating Special Relativity, 100 yrs after its publishing, and years of experimental verification? After 14 yrs of various forum participation, I concluded, they don't understand it, and different forums promote different interpretations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

When you can't understand another person's contrary viewpoint, you really don't understand your own, relativists. I've put all my math out in the open and no one yet has the mathematical muster to provide the slightest counter argument. This is not to say I haven't made mistakes and my last one was certainly a doozy misstatement (on another forum) which I'm trying to figure out why I said that when I should've known better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you can't understand another person's contrary viewpoint, you really don't understand your own, relativists. I've put all my math out in the open and no one yet has the mathematical muster to provide the slightest counter argument. This is not to say I haven't made mistakes and my last one was certainly a doozy misstatement (on another forum) which I'm trying to figure out why I said that when I should've known better. 

Ralfcis you are a exception to this rule, you actually make sense in what you are trying to do. I think you do actually understand SR very well and are just trying to make a new theory to replace it. This does not apply to you but many others on this forum. It is not wrong to try and model something in a theory of your own as a alternative geometry, that is how science looks at something through a different lens.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to respond to OP, I think a good chunk of the reason Einstein gets so much attention is that most physicistis are pretty poor philosophers. As a result, the way relativity is usually discussed with the mainstream is somewhere between childish and incorrect. Also it is common to tack things to Einstein that he never said - sometimes was even expressing criticism towards those ideas. If you go to some place like Quora, you will find out there's probably more misconceptions than facts being spread about relativity (which then gets equated with Einstein), and all this is done by people who seem to have credentials, and really should know better.

 

Smart people do notice when something is off, but all too often when they start asking questions, they get labeled as cranks. Usually by people who spread same misconceptions, and copy-paste their answers from Wikipedia. I think asking questions instead of settling to a belief should never be discouraged in science.

 

To me, Einstein seems like the most misunderstood person on the planet in some ways. There are huge amount of ideas pinned on him that he didn't actually come up with. Like "spacetime". Or "Length contraction". Or "speed of light as the absolute speed limit". I think most people in this forum would find the actual underpinnings of relativity quite surprising.

 

And there's all sorts of naive philosophical ideas associated with him that he probably never viewed as serious ontology. I think he was much smarter philosophically than it would seem like if you listen to what physicist today are eager to pin on him. Einstein seems to have made pretty good distinction between ontological assumptions and the actually important *relationships* between things that *we define*. It seems to me that this was his true strength, allowing him to recognize important relationships without emotional attachment to ones own beliefs. I think he was just not all that interested to discuss about purely metaphysical aspects (a.k.a "opinions") with lesser minds, so he also didn't spend too much time correcting his peers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...