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
User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Spiral Out » November 28th, 2013, 8:26 am

Xris wrote:Without a defence it is very difficult to form an objective opinion.
Truth generally needs no defense. If someone accused you personally of something quite absurd, would you feel compelled to defend against it?
EMTe wrote:Also, this is why English is the most widely used language in the world. Its basic vocabulary contains mostly short, easy to speak, words.
Simplicity is indeed the rule.
EMTe wrote:That's why Einstein beats Heisenberg, among many others, he's one syllable shorter.
Not sure about that one though.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Dolphin42 » November 28th, 2013, 8:43 am

The closer the sound of the name to the simplest vocalizations the better it sells.
I propose giving Einstein's crown to Max Planck. About as short as it gets. And he was German and tended to wear half-moon glasses. All good.

Not much hair though.

Max Planck is also famous for being the physicist who averted the "ultraviolet catastrophe". That sounds to me like a great basis for an action movie, perhaps starring the similarly follicley challenged Bruce Willis as our physicist hero.

Title: Photon

Tagline: "He was a maverick with a dream - to save the world from ultraviolet hell."

Disclaimer: Warning, photons are a fraud.
Last edited by Dolphin42 on November 28th, 2013, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EMTe
Posts: 784
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher
Location: Cracow

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by EMTe » November 28th, 2013, 9:19 am

Baldness is great as it is gay-friendly, moustache is not. This makes Planck bi-type and creates cloud of uncertainty around his persona. It doesnt sell well, consumers dont like to feel insecure.

If Planck would look like Foucault he would probably be a star now.
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.

Dolphin42
Posts: 885
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Dolphin42 » November 28th, 2013, 9:22 am

I just looked up Foucault's likeness on Google Images and I have to say I agree. And there's already a novel with his name in the title, which helps.

User avatar
Egos
Posts: 20
Joined: August 19th, 2013, 1:11 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John D. Barrow
Location: North Carolina

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Egos » December 3rd, 2013, 3:55 pm

:idea: Reply to xris #17. Your references are inaccurate. E= MCx2 can be derived from F=MA (multiply by sides by distance). Poincare's formulae is related to the Pythagorean theorem which can also be used to calculate the slowing of time.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2013, 3:56 pm to add the following --

:idea: Reply to xris #17. Your references are inaccurate. E= MCx2 can be derived from F=MA (multiply by sides by distance). Poincare's formulae is related to the Pythagorean theorem which can also be used to calculate the slowing of time.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Xris » December 3rd, 2013, 5:08 pm

Egos wrote::idea: Reply to xris #17. Your references are inaccurate. E= MCx2 can be derived from F=MA (multiply by sides by distance). Poincare's formulae is related to the Pythagorean theorem which can also be used to calculate the slowing of time.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2013, 3:56 pm to add the following --

:idea: Reply to xris #17. Your references are inaccurate. E= MCx2 can be derived from F=MA (multiply by sides by distance). Poincare's formulae is related to the Pythagorean theorem which can also be used to calculate the slowing of time.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/C ... nload/2362

I think you should read this.

User avatar
Kepler1571
Posts: 239
Joined: May 24th, 2013, 1:48 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Kepler1571 » December 3rd, 2013, 6:48 pm

EMTe wrote:The closer the sound of the name to the simplest vocalizations the better it sells.
Tesla would like a word with you...

DanLanglois
Posts: 142
Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by DanLanglois » December 4th, 2013, 1:13 am

I have essentially only read part of the OP, and am adding my two cents that I disapprove, and I'm not even curious how there got to be 50 posts on this.

Dumbass
Posts: 48
Joined: January 11th, 2013, 8:42 am

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Dumbass » December 4th, 2013, 1:57 pm

Einsteins theory of relativity was the working of outlining previous ideas, going back to Maxwell.

So in one sense your perfectly right. However, there's a distinction between constructing a theory, and making it "work". One could say Einstein was responsible for the latter.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Xris » December 4th, 2013, 2:56 pm

Dumbass wrote:Einsteins theory of relativity was the working of outlining previous ideas, going back to Maxwell.

So in one sense your perfectly right. However, there's a distinction between constructing a theory, and making it "work". One could say Einstein was responsible for the latter.
How do you make a theory work exactly? I am just amazed how one man can claim so much when others contributed so much.

Dumbass
Posts: 48
Joined: January 11th, 2013, 8:42 am

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Dumbass » December 4th, 2013, 4:16 pm

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

How do you make a theory work exactly? I am just amazed how one man can claim so much when others contributed so much.
By explaining why and how it works, through the means of elaboration. Do you understand?

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Xris » December 4th, 2013, 5:11 pm

Dumbass wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


By explaining why and how it works, through the means of elaboration. Do you understand?
You are not getting shiity? Teachers elaborate, does that give them credit?Do you understand :roll:

Dumbass
Posts: 48
Joined: January 11th, 2013, 8:42 am

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Dumbass » December 4th, 2013, 6:47 pm

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

You are not getting shiity? Teachers elaborate, does that give them credit?Do you understand :roll:
Don*t be silly.Teachers rehash prevalent "wisdom". Einstein thoroughly demonstrated why the theory works. Which clearly had not been done before. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense why he is the one getting credit for it. Einstein was a nobody. He regretted being born. There was nobody on his side.

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

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by DarwinX » December 4th, 2013, 8:00 pm

Dumbass wrote: Don*t be silly.Teachers rehash prevalent "wisdom". Einstein thoroughly demonstrated why the theory works. Which clearly had not been done before. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense why he is the one getting credit for it. Einstein was a nobody. He regretted being born. There was nobody on his side.
1. Please advise me of which physicist who thought up all of 'Einstein's so called ideas' was unable to prove or demonstrate their theory?

2. What did Einstein do that other physicists hadn't done previously?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Einstein was a fraud

Post by Neopolitan » December 5th, 2013, 12:02 am

The favourite philosopher of DarwinX is "Stephen Hurrell"? Stephen Hurrell of http://www.dinox.org/ who has the alternate theory of "Reduced Gravity" that, according to the whackier fringes of pseudoscience, competes with General Relativity?

What more needs to be said?

I do want to address one particular post by DarwinX, because it's the only one that seems to have any meat on it:
DarwinX wrote:If time is a dimension as relativity suggests, then, why isn't time included in any of his equations? Einstein keeps talking about time like it is a mathematical component of relativity, but fails to use it in any equations.If time has a geometric component, then it must also have a mathematical component. On closer examination, the time element is only an imaginary element and doesn't exist in reality. Therefore, the whole concept of relativity is just a puff of imaginary magic nonsense.

The only reason Einstein got the credit for coming up with relativity is because he rejected the existence of the aether. The true originators of relativity, Lorentz and Poincare, didn't reject the existence of an aether. Thus, the establishment had a hidden agenda in pushing Einstein to the foreground, while pushing Lorentz and Poincare back into the shadows of obscurity. Thus, religious pressures from the church was the real reason that relativity was accepted and the aether theory was rejected. Note - The biblical version of God couldn't exist in a steady state universe, so the aether theory had to go.
Last things first:
Albert Einstein wrote:Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
And now ... time. It's true that Einstein didn't provide equations for "time dilation" in his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It is, however, simply incorrect to say that Einstein didn't include time in any of his equations. His very first equation, for example is:
tB-tA=t'A-tB

Later he presents what is now known as the Lorentz Transformation for time (in terms of tau, rather than t') and from that leaps to an odd equation that is a blend of the equations for spatial contraction and time dilation. Now, I think there might be an issue involved with this leap - and have discussed it at great length elsewhere (on physicsforums) but in short because the priming notation used with t' associated with time dilation does not have the same meaning as the priming notation used x' associated with spatial contraction. They are in fact opposites, which you might see if you consider that x=v.t (and hence v=x/t). Using this one can easily convert the spatial Lorentz Transformation (where x' does not have the same meaning as the x' in spatial contraction) into the temporal Lorentz Transformation (where the meaning of t' is the same as for the t' in time dilation).

If one tries to convert the equation for spatial contraction in the equation for time dilation, it doesn't work.

Equally, one can use the temporal Lorentz Transformation to produce the time dilation equation by setting t=0 (meaning that you are measuring the distance between two locations at the same time in your frame). If you try the same thing with the spatial Lorentz Transformation, but setting x=0 (the time difference between two moments at the same location in your frame), it doesn't work - you end up with a "spatial dilation equation".

So, there is a minor issue here and it's not particular well explained (and is hotly debated by physicists when it is pointed out), but I think the problem is more about psychology and philosophy than it is about physics. We could be talking about "spatial dilation" or "temporal contraction" but neither concept sits well with us. I think it is because we view time and space differently, we find it difficult to visualise the separation between two points in time without involving a clock to tick off the seconds between them while we can visualise the separation between two points in space quite easily without using a metre rule.

But think about it for a moment ... if a space traveller moves from the Earth to the surface of the sun at 0.8c, relative to the Earth and does so in 16 minutes in our time, then less time will have elapsed for that traveller (0.6*16=9.6 minutes). How far can the traveller move in 9.6 minutes, noting that we already have a speed of 0.8c? It'll only be 0.6 of the way to the sun. Somehow, the traveller manages to turn 0.6AU (the astronomical unit is based on the average distance between the Earth and the sun) into 1AU - this is because their units of measurement have dilated: 1.00 metres to them is 1.67 metres to us. Alternatively, the space between the Earth and the sun has contracted but if this is the case, so has the time.

In short, it's a bit confusing and I would not be surprised that since Einstein was addressing these sorts of issues before anyone had properly got their head around them, this may have led him to wording things a little confusingly. It's just a little sad that we haven't properly resolved them since and the ongoing confusion gives purchase to people like DarwinX.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...

Post Reply