On the Lighter Side > New Theories

Pencho Valev - why Einstein is wrong

(1/7) > >>

daveshorts:
Pencho seems to post new topics all the time, so for the sake of tidyness I am grouping them all here.

daveshorts:
Pentcho Valev
New Member

7 Posts
   
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 :  12:40:20  
Imagine a theoretician (e.g. Albert the Juggler) who has obtained the result Y and is deified for that. He also claims he has deduced Y from the premise X (and possibly other premises) which is some assertion about physical reality (e.g. the speed of light is constant, independent of the speed of the light source or observer). How should fellows theoreticians react? If they are realists (in the philosophical sense), they should try to find out if X is true or false - if it is false, Y should be abandoned. If they are rationalists, they should check the deductive path leading from X to Y - if the deduction is invalid, Y should be abandoned.

Needless to say, the critical attitude described above presupposes some courage (especially if Albert the Juggler has already become Divine Albert). Unfortunately, theoreticians and philosophers of science (e.g. Karl the Sycophant) are not courageous in this way. They believe in the pessimistic induction - since theories in the past have been rejected as false, all theories, both past and future, are false, including the one harboring the deduction of Y from X. They also believe in the thesis of increasing verisimilitude - in the historically generated sequence the theories are increasing in verisimilitude; that is, in the degree to which they are approximately true. Accordingly, since the theory harboring the deduction of Y from X is the last in a sequence, it is relatively the truest one. Then why should theoreticians and philosophers of science bother about details such as the truth or falsehood of X or the validity of the deductive path leading from X to Y? Isn't it much more profitable to sing dithyrambs and worship at the portrait of the author of the truest theory (that is, Divine Albert)?

In so far as logic undoubtedly belongs to the heart of theoretical science, the established tradition based on the abuse or neglect of logic can be named "Postscientism". This tradition was born in 1850 when Clausius INVALIDLY deduced "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" from "Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold". But why have logicians failed to rectify or even notice the deviations of scientific logic?


In formal logic conditionals (inferences, derivations) are tautologies. This implies that the consequent can only be a NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION (one which does not participate in the formula of the antecedent) if the antecedent is an inconsistency. Examples:

[p,(p->q)]->q ; the consequent q is NOT A NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION

(p,not-p)->q ; the consequent q is a new atomic proposition but THE ANTECEDENT IS AN INCONSISTENCY

In scientific logic as applied in deductive theories (e.g. the theory of relativity, thermodynamics) ALL CONSEQUENTS ARE NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITIONS. That is, all conditionals are of the type (p,q)->r. Therefore there can be no overlapping between the set of conditionals in formal logic and the set of conditionals in scientific logic.

Conclusion: Mathematical logic cannot be used for the logical verification of scientific theories and jugglers (Clausius, Kelvin, Einstein, Prigogine) were free to deduce anything from anything.

Pentcho Valev

daveshorts
   
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 :  13:20:32  


Mathmatical logic can be used but is not sufficient to verify scientific theories eg:

What maths can do is tell you the consequences of your theory, eg if your hypothesis is that the speed of light is constant, the order of events is preserved etc. the maths will tell you that a consquence of this is that object's masses will increase when their speed does. You can then test this prediction to give evedience for or against your theory.

Of course maths isn't sufficient who the hell said it was? All maths does is tell you the consequences of your initial assumptions, this is both increadibly useful and tells you nothing definite about the real world, you get that from experiment.

What are you complaining about clausius for doing?
Go to Top of Page

daveshorts:
The Unambiguity of Einstein's Relativity
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 :  13:01:07
In 1919 Karl Popper found it suitable to start worshipping at the portrait of Albert Einstein because, unlike Marxism and psychoanalysis, the theory of relativity produced unambiguous results that could be tested experimentally. I suspect Popper was particularly impressed by Chapter 23 in Einstein's "Relativity" where Einstein offers a few confusions to the reader but the final result is unambiguous indeed: the observer at rest measures the periphery of the rotating disc to be LONGER than the periphery of a non-rotating disc. This result contradicts the unambiguous concept of length contraction according to which the observer at rest should measure the moving length to be SHORTER than the length at rest. In other words, both discoveries of Einstein - that the moving length is longer (LENGTH DILATION) and that the moving length is shorter (LENGTH CONTRACTION) - are unambiguous and can be tested experimentally. Popper went into convulsions any time he remembered this particular unambiguity of Einstein's theory.

Other relativists have considerably contributed to the unambiguity. So Ehrenfest discovered that the rotating periphery is SHORTER, in accordance with the unambiguous concept of length contraction. That is, Ehrenfest rejected the unambiguous concept of length dilation introduced by Einstein. A third group of relativists unambiguously say that the length of the rotating periphery is EQUAL to the length of the non-rotating periphery and so reject the unambiguous concepts of Einstein and Ehrenfest. Clearly, Popper's conclusion that relativity is science and Marxism and psychoanalysis are pseudo-sciences is justified.

Pentcho Valev

daveshorts
Moderator
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 :  15:37:09  
Urrr a rotating disk is accelerating, so it isn't an inertial reference frame. This means that special relativity will not work, you need the more generally applicable... general relativity. I have not done the maths but I don't see why this shouldn't predict that the edge of a rotating disc shouldn't be shorter than it should be.

What you appear to be saying is the equivalent of saying that Gallileo predicts that things fall in one direction in england, however Newton's theory says that they fall in the opposite direction in australia, so their predictions must be wrong.



Ophiolite
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 :  18:33:15
I think, Pentcho, that we can sometimes learn as much about the validity of a concept from the way it is presented as from the content of its presentation. Marshall McLuhan, perhaps, had a point. Would you agree?

I note that you characterise Popper's response to that of Einstein as one of 'worshipping'. It is arguably dismissive and derisory to characterise one of the foremost philosophers of the scientific method in such religious terms. The suggestion that he did not even worship Einstein himself, but merely his portrait adds insult to injury.

There is more than a hint of the patronising in the reference to a specific Chapter in "Relativity", as though your are parading your superior, detailed knowledge for all to see. [An edition and page reference would have been helpful. That is how these things are normally done.]

The extensive employment of sarcasm in your second and final paragraph would be more at home in a bitchy exchange between society ladies than on a science forum.

The combination of these stylistic peculiarities is diagnostic of a provisional salvo against conventional physics by a supporter of alternative physics by one improperly versed in either.

If I may phrase it more cogently and more robustly: I think you are talking crap.

Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

daveshorts:
Contradiction in Einstein's Cult
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  06:07:27
In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of Einstein's cult:

The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, Oh Albert, Oh Giant of Science,
Oh Creature Divine with an infinite power.

Of course both zombies and hypnotists know the formula F=V/L, where F is the frequency, V is the speed and L is the wavelength. This is the most horrible formula in the world: on seeing it, both zombies and hypnotists look for sand, bury their heads, expose other extremities and remain so until the danger is over. Why the horror? Pound and Rebka found that the receiver on the ground will receive the light with frequency F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo where Fo is the original frequency. The application of the horrible formula F=V/L unequivocally leads to the result

V = c + v

where V is the speed of light as measured by the receiver and v>0 is the speed of the receiver (or the light source) in an equivalent setup where the tower is replaced by an accelerated rocket. So after taking their heads out of the sand both zombies and hypnotists perform a special voodoo ritual designed to disconnect the two formulas, F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo and F=V/L, in the mind of any possible human being. So far the ritual has proved extremely efficient.

Yet from time to time a human being combines the two formulas and then a contradiction between zombies and hypnotists becomes evident. Hypnotists know that the truth of Newton's c+v principle and the falsehood of Einstein's c principle are the only reasonable conclusions:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Zombies know nothing, look desperately at the two formulas and postulate in the end: If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly but the speed of light remains constant. The speed of light is constant. Constant is the speed of light. The speed of light does not vary. Velocity may vary (Divine Albert said so in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity") but the speed never etc.

However hypnotists are not happy. They know how silly this "If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly" is.

Pentcho Valev

daveshorts
Moderator
   
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  11:12:07
Urr if you look into general relativity you will discover that it predicts frequency shifts in a gravitational field so this experiment isn't evidence against relativity.

If newtonian mechanics predicts some of the same results as relativity that is what you would expect as relativity has to explain all the evidence that lead to newtonian mechanics, so relativity will approximate to the newtonian stuff in most circumstances.

Out of interest what is it about relativity that you have such a problem with?


Dr B   
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  17:02:34
Before anyone gets too involved with trying to discuss things with Pentcho Valev, please google his name. See for example
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Dr B
Istanbul

daveshorts:
Relativity without Einstein's Second Postulate
Pentcho Valev
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  06:14:40
There is a growing panic in Einstein's criminal cult. Einstein's second postulate is false: the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source or observer. Of course relativity hypnotists knew it all along but the huge army of bellicose zombies did not. Now the situation has changed: zombies are demoralized and do not destroy heretics efficiently. Hypnotists try to make some more money by creating a relativity without Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLReview1.html
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf p.35 ("Relativity without c")

Yet the panic remains. Everybody remembers Einstein's confession:

"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."

Soon hypnotists will verify Einstein's words by removing the principle of constancy of the speed of light and introducing the principle of variability of the speed of light in Einstein's original 1905 paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

For instance, in the equations at the beginning of

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

hypnotists will replace c+v and c-v (remnants of the old constant-speed-of-light period) with c (the revolutionary variable-speed-of-light contribution) and so will obtain

tau = t, instead of the equation tau = a(t - (v/(c^2 - v^2))x')

This will be the new revolutionary theory of relativity where Einstein's false second postulate is absent. Some may say this is a return to Newton but hypnotists will say it isn't. Nobel prizes will follow.

Pentcho Valev

daveshorts   
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  10:44:50
Urrr this is how science works someone comes up with a theory that explains a load of results, after a while someone comes up with some data which doesn't quite work with the present theory, so if the data looks to be right, we have to come up with an improved or new theory. Repeat...

There is nothing particularly special about einstein's theories except that relativity has been very successful at predicting things, some of his theories have been thrown away long ago - his designs for wings for example didn't work at all. Just most of the wacky predictions in at least special relativity have been confirmed experimentally so any new theory will probably have to be more rather than less wierd.

ps The site is a lot neater if you keep discussion of one topic in one topic, cheers.

Dr B
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  17:01:49
Before anyone gets too involved with trying to discuss things with Pentcho Valev, please google his name. See for example
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Dr B
Istanbul

daveshorts
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  18:31:29
Cheers


Hadrian   
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 :  18:57:20
Famous in ones own lunch time with the chance of travelling back to eat it hey!

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page