Einstein was a fraud

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Obvious Leo » April 2nd, 2015, 3:16 am

Steve3007 wrote:
If I was hovering around in space, let us say at least one light year away from any other large cosmic body, what would be the difference between the speed of my watch versus the speed of a watch worn by someone here on the Earth?
I think one thing it's important to do is ask questions from the point of view of what can actually be measured. How would it be possible to measure any discrepancies between the two watches?
I took Atreyu's question as a thought experiment, Steve. You're surely not suggesting I gave the wrong answer!!

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Steve3007 » April 2nd, 2015, 8:26 am

Leo:
I took Atreyu's question as a thought experiment, Steve. You're surely not suggesting I gave the wrong answer!!
Perish the thought. I can appreciate the utility of a good physically-unrealisable-by-definition thought experiment as much as the next man. Schrodinger's Cat, Einstein on a lightwave, Fanman picking up Mick Jagger etc. But I guess, to use my current favourite prefix, they're kind of meta-experiments. Experiments about the nature of experiments.

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by DarwinX » April 2nd, 2015, 12:27 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:DarwinX. The "ticks" of atomic clocks are the hyper-regular switching of atoms between two energy levels. For now, it is stressed, the most accurate definition of a second is the amount of time it takes a group of caesium atoms to swing between states 9,192,631,770 times. If you were to run this clock for around 100 million years it would only gain or lose about a second, it is claimed.

The important thing to understand about an atomic clock is that no matter whereabouts in the universe you choose to place it the caesium atoms will swing between states 9,192,631,770 times per second. AS MEASURED LOCALLY.!!!! Gravity doesn't just slow time down. Gravity slows EVERYTHING down because gravity determines the speed at which reality is COMING INTO EXISTENCE. Gravity is the cosmic metronome.

Regards Leo
You have contradicted yourself. Atomic clocks can't measure the same everywhere because when they are in orbit of the Earth they tick faster. What do you mean by "as measured locally"?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Lucylu » April 2nd, 2015, 1:52 pm

DarwinX wrote:Albert Einstein was a common thief who stole all his ideas from other more talented and hard working scientists. He never had one original idea in his head, from the time he was born, till the time of his death. All of his - so called 'brilliant ideas' were discovered previously by scientists and physicists such as Poincare, Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz. He was just lucky to be in the right place, at the right time, when there was a paradigm shift in the world of physics. They needed a figure head to promote physics and Einstein seemed to fit the bill. He had all the required attributes that they assumed that a brilliant scientist must have, but, little did they know that this man was a fraud, a communist and an egomaniac.

Note - Physics figure heads- Einstein and Hawking both belong to minority groups. Einstein being a Jew and Hawking is almost totally paralyzed. It is considered politically incorrect to criticize or to question the authority of someone who is from a minority group. Thus, they are protected and can say whatever they want, without anybody being able to disagree with their ideas because of their minority group (protected species status).
Who is the 'they' exactly who wanted to promote physics and what were their motives? Do you really believe that a disabled person can say whatever they want and no one will disagree? Why aren't the academic journals filled with articles by disabled people or disabled Jews for that matter? Where is the world famous physicist who is Jewish and Islamic, African American, transsexual, HIV positive, a wheelchair user, with 12 adoptive children who spouts out complete nonsense to rave reviews?

It may be politically incorrect to needlessly criticise someone who is from a minority group but does it then follow that any accomplishment by such a person should be automatically dismissed and viewed as favouritism? That is so patronising, and just a more self righteous form of discrimination. If it were true then the reverse would also be true, wouldn't it? So an aristocrat or someone from a privileged, white, highly educated background would never be a popular figure of science- like Darwin for example.

People cant be blamed for what the media says about them and for the amount of attention they receive. The only real question then is the physics- but I will leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to debate that one.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Obvious Leo » April 2nd, 2015, 2:34 pm

DarwinX wrote:You have contradicted yourself. Atomic clocks can't measure the same everywhere because when they are in orbit of the Earth they tick faster. What do you mean by "as measured locally"?
I haven't contradicted myself at all, I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong. A second in time is defined as I have described as the specific number of times that the atoms in the caesium clock swing between states. The most sophisticated of these clocks can be placed 1cm apart from each other and will go out of sync with each other because of minuscule differences in gravitational effects. Since this clock is the size of a volkswagen you may accept that this is derived from calculation rather than direct observation but it has been observed and measured at slightly greater distances of separation. It is literally impossible to synchronise any two clocks in the universe, no matter how closely they can be placed together, because these caesium clocks are sundials compared with the hypothetical clock which can measure time differentials on the Planck scale. As I said the clock on the electron runs faster than the clock on the nucleus it orbits.

"As measured locally" means what it says. A second on a neutron star is a far longer time interval than a second on earth so although the atoms swing between states the same number of times per second in each clock in relative terms the clock on the neutron star is running slower. In this particular example a hell of a lot slower.

This is a very useful phenomenon, DarwinX, and one for which you should be grateful. The fact that your head is coming into existence faster than your feet is what is holding you onto the surface of the planet.

Regards Leo

-- Updated April 3rd, 2015, 6:02 am to add the following --

DarwinX. If you think carefully about what I'm saying and accept that this completely uncontroversial fact of nature is in fact a fact then you can expose the so-called "expanding universe" as a hoax.

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by DarwinX » April 3rd, 2015, 12:15 am

Lucylu wrote:
Who is the 'they' exactly who wanted to promote physics and what were their motives? Do you really believe that a disabled person can say whatever they want and no one will disagree? Why aren't the academic journals filled with articles by disabled people or disabled Jews for that matter? Where is the world famous physicist who is Jewish and Islamic, African American, transsexual, HIV positive, a wheelchair user, with 12 adoptive children who spouts out complete nonsense to rave reviews?

It may be politically incorrect to needlessly criticise someone who is from a minority group but does it then follow that any accomplishment by such a person should be automatically dismissed and viewed as favouritism? That is so patronising, and just a more self righteous form of discrimination. If it were true then the reverse would also be true, wouldn't it? So an aristocrat or someone from a privileged, white, highly educated background would never be a popular figure of science- like Darwin for example.

People cant be blamed for what the media says about them and for the amount of attention they receive. The only real question then is the physics- but I will leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to debate that one.
Who are they indeed! They are the hidden bureaucrats that promote the ideals of political correctness. What is political correctness? It is just a disguised form of Communism, Marxism or Fascism. It began in Germany before the second world war and was transferred to America by the Frankfurt School of Philosophy. It encompasses the philosophies of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Herbert Marcuse. The object being the creation of a classless society, but unfortunately the philosophy doesn't take into consideration human nature which always undermines and corrupts any system. The end result being, that political correctness is used as a means of curtailing freedom of speech, freedom of the press and even freedom of thought. As with all communistic ideologies it involves the use of punishment, rather than using a reward system to achieve its goals.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Atreyu » April 3rd, 2015, 12:47 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
Atreyu wrote: If I was hovering around in space, let us say at least one light year away from any other large cosmic body, what would be the difference between the speed of my watch versus the speed of a watch worn by someone here on the Earth?
Your watch would tick faster, just as the watch at the top of Mount Everest ticks faster than a watch at sea level. If you had accurate enough watches a watch worn on your wrist would tick faster than a watch worn on your ankle, assuming you remain upright.
So you are saying that I myself would notice my watch moving faster? Or would my subjective experience of time seem the same to me? And if not, does this mean that I would age much faster than when in the presence of a gravity field similar to the Earth's?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Obvious Leo » April 3rd, 2015, 1:17 am

Atreyu wrote:So you are saying that I myself would notice my watch moving faster?
No. You would notice nothing different.
Atreyu wrote: Or would my subjective experience of time seem the same to me?
Your subjective experience of time would be unaffected because as time speeds up and slows down so does every single sub-atomic particle in your body.
Atreyu wrote:And if not, does this mean that I would age much faster than when in the presence of a gravity field similar to the Earth's?
I've highlighted the word "much" because even in the interstellar scenario you postulate the temporal difference is minuscule. I don't know how to do the sums, although I gather that they're not very difficult, but my guess is that over an entire lifespan the difference would be a matter of minutes or hours, not days or weeks. Steve might be able to take a better guess but major temporal differences only occur in extreme gravitational environments such as black holes. Even neutron stars would be relatively gravitationally benign from the temporal disparity point of view but probably not a very hospitable place to live. In fact humans have evolved to live in our 1G gravity and would be quite unable to survive outside of it for any significant length of time. The idiots so keen to sign up for a permanent Mars colony will all be dead inside a year, even if they manage to make it that far.

Regards Leo

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Steve3007 » April 3rd, 2015, 9:35 am

Leo:
DarwinX. If you think carefully about what I'm saying and accept that this completely uncontroversial fact of nature is in fact a fact then you can expose the so-called "expanding universe" as a hoax.
It's not a hoax. It's a fraud. It's always important in science to use precise terminology.

-- Updated Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:56 pm to add the following --
I don't know how to do the sums, although I gather that they're not very difficult, but my guess is that over an entire lifespan the difference would be a matter of minutes or hours, not days or weeks.
Less than that, it seems. I was curious enough to see if I could work it out.

I tried calculating the time as measured by your local "clock" relative to the time measured on another "clock" in a different gravitational field potential (i.e. gravitational field strengths) both of which are observed by the same observer.

I put the word "clock" in quotes because it really means any time dependent process. So, as Leo said, all processes in that same location experience the same time dilation. So you would have no way of noticing it locally. You only notice it by comparing with other "clocks" in other positions.

The gravitational/accelerational time dilation (General Relativity) is complicated by the fact that there is also time dilation because of relative motion (Special Relativity). But I did think it would be interesting to try to keep things as simple as possible and make a rough order of magnitude calculation of the effect that General Relativity predicts for a 1 metre tall person standing on the surface of the Earth (midgets make the maths a bit easier) and only considering the gravitational pull of the Earth.

Acceleration due to gravity (g) on the Earth's surface is about 9.8 m/s2. Let's call it 10. Its value is inversely proportional to the square of your distance from the centre of the Earth. So the higher you go the lower it gets. Double your distance from the Earth's centre and you divide g by 4. So 6371 kms above the Earth's surface it's about 2.5 m/s2. So if our midget's feet are 6371000 metres from the centre of the Earth, his head is 6371001 metres from the centre of the Earth. Not much difference, but still a difference.

By my calculations, that means that if g at his feet is 10 m/s2, then g at his head is about 9.99999686 m/s2. Not much difference, but still a difference.

It's that difference in gravitational potential that makes time run very, very slightly faster for his head than his feet. But how much faster? I had to look up some equations of General Relativity. As with most things in physics, there are the difficult complicated equations that give you the accurate answer for a wide variety of circumstances and there are the relatively simple equations that make a few simplifying approximations and assumptions so aren't so widely applicable. As we're only doing a ROM calculation I'll try the simplest one I could find. It was this:

t0 = tf sqrt(1 - r0 / r)

I think that's the right one.

---

In that equation, t0 is the rate of time at distance r from the centre of the planet relative to tf which is the rate of time an infinite distance away from the planet - i.e. with zero gravity.

---

r0 is the "Schwarzschild radius" of the Earth. For any spherical object, like a planet, if you were to compress it down to a smaller radius, but keep all its mass, then the force of gravity on its surface would increase, because the surface has got closer to its centre but the mass is the same. Compress it down to a small enough size and the gravity on the surface gets so high that even light can't escape - i.e. it becomes a black hole.

The Schwarzschild radius is the radius to which you have to compress it in order to achieve that. For a planet of mass M it is:

r0 = 2GM / c2.

c, the speed of light, is about 300,000,000 m/s. So c2 = 90,000,000,000,000,000 m2/s2.

G, the universal gravitational constant is about 6.674 X 10-11 m3kg-1s-2.

So for the Earth (M = 6 X 1024 = 6000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg), this comes out as 0.0089 metres. Just under 1cm. So to turn the Earth into a black hole you'd have to take its entire mass (including all of us) and squash it into a sphere not much bigger than a pea.

---

OK, if we try plugging in our distance from the centre of the Earth for our midget's head and feet, and set tf to 1, we get this:

Midget's head: t0 = 0.99999999930152263333

Midget's feet: t0 = 0.99999999930152252369


The ratio of the two is about 1.0000000000000001.

---

So you take the time which passes for his feet, multiply it by that number, and that gives you the time that passes for his head.

After 1 year has passed for his feet, the time that has passed for his head will be 1 X 1.0000000000000001 years. That's 1 year and 0.0000000031565 seconds. Each year his head ages by about 3 billionths of a second more than his feet.

If he lives to be 100 years old and stands up for his entire life, his head will be about 30 millionths of a second older than his feet.

Not much difference, but still a difference.

Another midget (or anyone else) living a long, long way from any planets or stars, in near-zero gravity, ages a whopping 0.02 seconds more quickly, per year, than his brother (head and feet) on Earth.

If anyone thinks I've made any glaring mistakes here (apart from bothering to do all this, or believing the predictions of GR) let me know!

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Obvious Leo » April 3rd, 2015, 3:15 pm

Steve. Thanks for doing the sums. I took Atreyu's question to apply to the bloke aging 1 light year from any massive body relative to the bloke aging on earth. I was originally going to guess a matter of seconds over a normal life-span but then got cold feet and changed it to minutes. I should have trusted my original instinct.
Steve3007 wrote:Another midget (or anyone else) living a long, long way from any planets or stars, in near-zero gravity, ages a whopping 0.02 seconds more quickly, per year, than his brother (head and feet) on Earth.
Assuming our twin midgets both make it to a hundred years old the bloke in space will get there 2 seconds earlier. Obviously this number is small enough to be regarded as negligible but it is not small enough to be regarded as irrelevant. If we place one of our midgets in a black hole his brother on earth could age millions of times faster, depending on the mass of the black hole. The relationship between time and gravity is inversely logarithmic according to an absurdly steep hyperbolic curve and the gravitational environments we're comparing here are all on the "flat" section of this curve. Once we start talking serious gravity we start venturing up the bit that gets exponentially steeper.

This question also relates to the interferometer topic elsewhere because negligible is NOT synonymous with irrelevant. The Planck interval is the smallest possible interval of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and literally trillions of trillions of trillions of these intervals pass every second of our lives. At this absurdly small scale time passes more quickly on the electron than it does on the nucleus it orbits. The Standard Model assumes that this differential is irrelevant because it is negligible and also ignores the relativistic motions of the other various sub-atomic particles. Quantum gravity is staring them right in the face and yet they'll never see it for as long as they continue to swallow Minkowski's cock-and-bull story, which was undoubtedly a proto-Nazi plot cooked up by a gang of evil-hearted Krauts in quest of world domination.

Regards Leo

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Steve3007 » April 3rd, 2015, 3:49 pm

Hi Leo,

Yes, a very small effect but not zero. No matter how small the effect, I can see that it is at least conceivable that it could be leveraged by extreme non-linearity in a chaotic system so as to have some kind of result which would end up as something observable. I'm just intrigued as to precisely how tiny the effect is in this kind of situation, as you say on the flatter end of the curve.

The Schwartzschild metric equation that I used there (which I found on good old Wikipedia) is probably completely inappropriate for this: but I'm interested to see what result it would give for the time dilation due the gravitational field of the electron in a hydrogen nucleus (a proton). As I say, I presume I'm being hopelessly naive to simply transfer this equation of GR to a situation dominated by QM, but it'll be interesting just to see the order of magnitude of the numbers.
Quantum gravity is staring them right in the face and yet they'll never see it for as long as they continue to swallow Minkowski's cock-and-bull story, which was undoubtedly a proto-Nazi plot cooked up by a gang of evil-hearted Krauts in quest of world domination.
An appropriately DarwinXian way of putting it. :)

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Atreyu » April 3rd, 2015, 4:23 pm

Thanks for clearing that up for me, guys. That was probably the most succinct and detailed explanation I've ever received from any message board in my life. And while I am very grateful for such a well thought out and exact explanation, my head is still hurting from digesting it..... :(

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by DarwinX » April 3rd, 2015, 5:01 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:DarwinX. The "ticks" of atomic clocks are the hyper-regular switching of atoms between two energy levels. For now, it is stressed, the most accurate definition of a second is the amount of time it takes a group of caesium atoms to swing between states 9,192,631,770 times. If you were to run this clock for around 100 million years it would only gain or lose about a second, it is claimed.

The important thing to understand about an atomic clock is that no matter whereabouts in the universe you choose to place it the caesium atoms will swing between states 9,192,631,770 times per second. AS MEASURED LOCALLY.!!!! Gravity doesn't just slow time down. Gravity slows EVERYTHING down because gravity determines the speed at which reality is COMING INTO EXISTENCE. Gravity is the cosmic metronome.

Regards Leo
What happens if you put a pendulum onto a moving vehicle? Does the pendulum speed up or slow down?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Obvious Leo » April 3rd, 2015, 5:48 pm

Steve3007 wrote:Yes, a very small effect but not zero.
The duration of the Planck interval is an absurdly brief 5.4 x 10-44seconds. I'm assuming that on the Planck scale for particles whizzing around at a mere fraction less than light-speed the relativistic masses of the different particles come into play in a very big way and this would provide the leveraging effect and the extreme non-linearity you refer to. Obviously the details of this are way above my pay grade but the way I conceptualise this is that it is this non-linear chaotic behaviour which gives rise to the emergent electro-weak and strong nuclear "forces". However my objective has never been to try and figure out the finer points of the GUT. Instead what I seek to offer is a more metaphysically coherent way to think about the finer points of the GUT by bringing gravity and time into the subatomic world. Obviously in this sort of conceptual paradigm 3D space is not a part of the equation.

Regards Leo

-- Updated April 4th, 2015, 9:00 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote: Quantum gravity is staring them right in the face and yet they'll never see it for as long as they continue to swallow Minkowski's cock-and-bull story, which was undoubtedly a proto-Nazi plot cooked up by a gang of evil-hearted Krauts in quest of world domination.


An appropriately DarwinXian way of putting it.
I was just trying to stay on-topic by getting into the general spirit of the theme.

Cogito ergo sum
Moderator
Posts: 174
Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Cogito ergo sum » April 10th, 2015, 12:40 am

Darwinx, yet again you are misinterpreting relativity and the difference between the world that we experience and the world in which particles are approaching vast amounts of energy. To say that time is a constant is absoluty correct if you are viewing the world from a Newtonian perspective, who may I add, only stated that because he believed that an all powerful God could have a special view of the world. The special view that newtons God what was that of being able to be outside of time and therefore see things as they were irregardless of where he was because he was everywhere. Now, considering we can only be at one place at a time, in time and space, we can only observe things as they are RELATIVE to our position in that coordinate system. Saying that time is a constant would be, in the relativistic sense, equivalent to saying that a straight line is constant. This is obviously not true because if I was to drop a rock while standing still and directly above it, it would fall staight down relative to my position. But if you were, at the same time driving by me while I dropped the rock it would appear to fall in a curve relative to how fast and in what direction you were going. Now the question is who has the right perspective? According to Newton only God does and according to Einstein no one does because it is all relative to where you are in relation to other coordinate systems.

-- Updated April 10th, 2015, 1:06 am to add the following --
DarwinX wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:DarwinX. The "ticks" of atomic clocks are the hyper-regular switching of atoms between two energy levels. For now, it is stressed, the most accurate definition of a second is the amount of time it takes a group of caesium atoms to swing between states 9,192,631,770 times. If you were to run this clock for around 100 million years it would only gain or lose about a second, it is claimed.

The important thing to understand about an atomic clock is that no matter whereabouts in the universe you choose to place it the caesium atoms will swing between states 9,192,631,770 times per second. AS MEASURED LOCALLY.!!!! Gravity doesn't just slow time down. Gravity slows EVERYTHING down because gravity determines the speed at which reality is COMING INTO EXISTENCE. Gravity is the cosmic metronome.

Regards Leo
What happens if you put a pendulum onto a moving vehicle? Does the pendulum speed up or slow down?


Darwinx, if you put a pendulum In a vehicle and you were observing it while in the same vehicle it would be swinging the same as it would while you observed it while stationary. This is because you are looking at it relative to the speed you are both moving at in your coordinate system. Now if you were in a moving vehicle and swung a pendulum and I was traveling close to the speed of light past you i would view it moving differently. The whole point is that depending on where you are, when you are and how fast or slow you are going is going to effect your observations. General relativity is only really necessary when you are dealing with massive amounts of energy and it will be useful in the maths to explain certain phenomena. Einstien made claims that have been verified, he made predictions that have held up as of now. Whatever your vendetta might be it is from my perspective unjustified considering you have made massive claims about things which, as far as I can tell have offered no predictions that could verify them. That is how science works my friend, if tomorrow an experiment proved that relativity is incorrect I would accept that and move on, that's what seperates science from theology and philosophy.

Post Reply