Jump to content

Trouble with Einstein


Are Einstein's theories correct?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Einstein's theories correct?

    • Einstein's ok by me
    • Something seems amiss
    • It's the twilight zone I tell you

Recommended Posts

In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the primeval fireball, the "big bang," was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now exists in the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot big bang theory is "the entire physical universe, all the matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure."


What the hell is near infinite density meant to mean anyway.

I've had it with this lot. I dont care what Hawkings says next, I dont think there ever was a big bang, there aint no black holes and gravitys pushing out the way.


modern astronomy is sinking deeper and deeper into mythology. Scientific evidence is discarded and replaced with consensus from astronomical authorities.



No one tried to dispute Einstein during his lifetime. However, about a decade after Einstein’s death in 1955, powerful computers became available, which could finally apply the General Relativity equations to complex physical models. These computer studies led to the conclusion that Oppenheimer was right and Einstein was wrong. General Relativity apparently proved that if a contracting star reaches a critical density of matter, it must collapse indefinitely to form a black hole singularity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every strict test of general relativity has matched Einstein's equations so far, to the available accuracy, which is pretty remarkable.


The limits may be being reached with dark matter and dark energy having to be drafted in, with some people to think those may not actually exist, but are just a fudge needed to make GR work on the intergalatic scale, suggesting a deeper layer of equations might be waiting, in the same way GR overlays Newtonian physics under more extreme conditions.


There are plenty of ideas, and no firm ways of narrowing them down at the moment, and I think that is where the appearance of mysticism comes from.

Infinite energy/density cannot exist as such, although they might appear to be that, from where we are looking, or from our understanding.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the start of time, why would the universe choose then to go off? why not have gone off a non minute before, or a minute after? Why bother going off at all?.


Infinite energy/density cannot exist as such, although they might appear to be that, from where we are looking, or from our understanding

If it cant run for ever then surely it could never have got charged in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ :)

At the start of time, why would the universe choose then to go off? why not have gone off a non minute before, or a minute after? Why bother going off at all?.


Aah, the illusion of free will. And yes, i knew you'd write that, it was written in the stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The publication of Special Relativity provided a golden opportunity for the majority of the academic community. Under the interpretations of Nature provided by Special Relativity the door was opened for the majority of its members who were without the talent required to understand its workings. At the same time, those with the necessary talent needed to understand reality instinctively recognized that contradictions were implicit in Special Relativity (described later) and could not accept the subject as it was presented. (Teachers of Special Relativity report that a significant percentage of intelligent and mathematically skilled students cannot master the subject.) The inability to accept Special Relativity, as presented, effectively eliminates individuals with a strong sense of reality (which by another name is called common sense) from the ranks of those who acted as advisors to PhD candidates and from the roles of those who perform the peer reviews which determine what is published in scientific journals. As a result, a selection process was gradually put in place which insured that only material which did not threaten the validity of Special and General Relativity was published. Material which appeared to be a threat, no matter how powerfully presented and how intellectually and observationally valid, was effectively squelched. On the other hand, material which supported Special and General Relativity, no matter how trivial or absurd, was readily published. Once this point was reached, it was possible to make the claim that the subject matter could not be understood in terms of common sense. It could only be understood in terms of mathematics and there were a limited number of minds in the world who could truly comprehend Dr. Einstein's work.


The Einstein Hoax consists of maintaining the quasi-religious belief that the phenomena associated with velocity and gravitation cannot be understood by ordinary men using their common sense. It can only be understood in terms of mathematics performed by initiates who possessed the prerequisite 'yup's. Whether it is recognized or not, all of the essentials of a religion are present. There is a deity in the form of Dr. Einstein, who, like most of the men who have had that role thrust on them over the centuries, probably did not seek or even relish it. It has an established but unproven set of truths which were revealed by that deity. Finally, it is protected by selected defenders of the faith who, in this case, act through the peer review process to insure that heresy in any form is never published. The motive for the maintaining of the Einstein Hoax is rather obvious, it's money. Society expends a large sums supporting this priesthood through tuitions paid by parents and grants by governments and industry. The donors believe they are paying for the teaching of the young, however, that teaching is mostly done by graduate students who are seeking their own 'yup's. The established possessors of the necessary 'yup's spend most of their time in research because, not only is that activity more interesting, it serves to advance their tenure protected careers. Should Special and/or General Relativity be shown to be fundamentally flawed, the careers of Relativists, most Cosmologists, and those working on Quantum Gravity and/or Unified Field Theory will have been wasted.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a scientist would not want to upset the orthodoxy seems to come from more of a fundamental religious viewpoint than a scientific one.....


I would guess that the number of scientists who would say "well, I can prove Einstein was not quite right with GR, but ah.... no..... that would upset the quasi-religious status quo...... so I had better not...." would be quite low ;)


GR is straightforward compared with quantum mechanics, but we seem to manage to use both to the limits of our practical understanding...... the writer seems to be complaining that if something is not easily understood by applying common sense, then it is somehow flawed...... but common sense has it's limits like everything else, and sometimes they are pretty low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You need to join a philosophy class or something. Some questions cannot be answered, yet... i.e. why is the universe, where is it and so on.


A simple way of looking at it is to take the not so distant human race, who thought that the earth must be square, and said wait if you go over the horizon you fall of the edge!; of course that’s plain ridiculous, you go around the earth, we learned that its close to being a sphere.


Same thing here; where’s the edge of the universe? Humans in the future might laugh and say, don't be silly there is no edge you simply [Future self fill in blank]...


We are very limited beings in our imaginations, scientists now think that there may be 16 dimensions; we are incapable of imagining that, because we are stuck in a 3 dimensional mind, it’s all we know... But the math seems to work...


To take the stance of "I've had it with this lot. I don’t care what Hawking says next, I don’t think there ever was a big bang, there aint no black holes and gravity’s pushing out the way." is kind of short sighted, and ignorant.


Just because your / our imaginations can't imagine the strangeness of physics and quantum physics, doesn’t mean it’s not true, or as true as we can figure out.


On the grand scale of things don't you think it’s really quite strange that the universe is here at all, why, when, where etc? Mind boggling.


Isn't it also true that these strange questions could be followed by even stranger answers; it seems to be a logical way to look at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignorance is the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information


Ignorance is relative :wink:


Are you so completely convinced of your opinion, that before even examining new evidence, you will immediately discard the heretical data without thorough consideration? If the answer is yes, (and for many it is) then you must admit you have built your belief system using exactly the same method as any religious zealot. Though this zealotry will not culminate in terrorist acts, the results of an unexamined belief system pervading the scientific community could be devastating.
members of the academic community. In order to acquire their PhDs, they have, of necessity, allowed themselves to be brainwashed into submerging common sense reasoning in favor of reasoning by formal procedures. In so doing, not only they have they unknowingly suppressed the most powerful capability of the brain, its pattern recognition capability, and concentrated on the development of one of the brain's lesser capabilities, its ability to process logic, they have made it possible to ignore aspects of the problem which are not included in the postulate structure of the mathematics.
Newton's Second Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. An exception to this rule seems to be the forces associated with inertial and gravitational accelerations. A force must be applied to an object to change its velocity, but there is no apparent opposing force to match the applied force. The same situation occurs when one considers the force of gravity. As you sit in your chair you are conscious of a force pressing you against it, but, as with inertial acceleration, there is no apparent opposing force matching it. As a result, the opposing forces required by Newtons's Second Law of Motion for both inertial and gravitational forces are referred to as fictitious. It is sometimes asserted that the General Theory of Relativity has shown that what appears to be the force of gravity does not occur but is a manifestation of the curvature of space associated with the source of the gravitational field. As we shall see later, General Relativity does not eliminate gravity as a force, it replaces it with the observable component of an enormous force acting along an unobservable fourth spatial axis. If one accepts the existence of the classical Aether, the fictitious forces present no conceptual difficulty since they are acting against the rigid medium of the Aether. Under Special Relativity, on the other hand, there is no medium for these forces to react against, and one is forced to accept the existence of exceptions to Newtons's Second Law of Motion.
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.


Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.


This "horizon problem" is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. "Inflation", for example.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a scientist would not want to upset the orthodoxy seems to come from more of a fundamental religious viewpoint than a scientific one.....

... And is completely ridiculous. The only reason Einstein is remembered is because he disproved Newton. Every young physics graduate dreams of disproving Einstein. The fact that it hasn't happened is just a further measure of how close to the truth Einstein actually was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE name "Einstein" evokes images of a good-humoured genius, who revolutionised our concepts of space, time, energy, mass and motion. Time named Albert Einstein "person of the century". The language itself has incorporated "Einstein" into our common vocabulary as a synonym for extraordinary brilliance. Many consider Einstein to have been the finest mind in recorded human history.


That is the popular image, fostered by textbooks, the media, and hero worshiping physicists and historians. However, when one reads the scientific literature written by Einstein's contemporaries, a quite different picture emerges: one of an irrational plagiarist, who manipulated credit for their work.



Link to comment
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.

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.


  • Create New...