Readers
are familiar with the durable marriage between the Big Bang Theory and
relativity. Without Einstein’s massless light particle and its perpetual motion
the universal expansion interpretation and the BBT would be toast. Anyone who
objects to the absurdity must be denigrated and any suggestions for change must
be rejected out of hand.
In
what eventually will be a classical opinion piece, the editor of Physics Today, published by the American
Physical Society, summed up the situation:
The editor mentions
letters from those “who believe they’ve arrived at some startling new insight heretofore
unknown to the professional physics community, often about how the work of Albert
Einstein was all wrong.”
And goes on to restate a familiar
defense of the great man:
“If some error were to come
to light in, say, the theory of general relativity, the discovery would almost
certainly be based on a similarly sophisticated level of understanding. The
theory has withstood all the tests experimenters have thrown at it. What’s
more, every measurement by GPS device requires a general relativistic
correction to account for the slightly different speeds of clocks on satellites
and on Earth’s surface. If it somehow turned out that the theory was
nevertheless flawed, and the accuracy of GPS was all just a coincidence, that
would be a big deal.”
Astute readers know that much
of relativity (except for the E=mc2 equation borrowed
from Maxwell) involves Einsteinisms (predictions right for the wrong reasons). GPS
does not use General Relativity Theory.[1]
It does require a correction for altitude. In Aether Deceleration Theory I explain
the altitude effect as a result of increasing aether pressure and decreasing
aether density with distance from Earth.[2]
Like the atmosphere, entrained, decelerated aether forms a halo around Earth.
This is the physical reason for what is claimed to be curved empty space in relativity.
Not only is the increase in aether pressure responsible for gravitation, but it
also causes clocks to run faster.[3]
Again, in General Relativity Theory, these effects were claimed by Einstein to
be a result of curved empty space and time dilation. Because light velocity is
a function of aetherial pressure, the waves from any source are stretched out
slightly. Each detection of the resulting so-called “gravitational redshift” is
claimed as a confirmation of relativity and the magical “space-time curvature”
and “time dilation.” Einstein was right—but for the wrong reason.
Readers also know there are
over 9,000 dissidents opposed to various claims of relativity and its
birthright, the Big Bang Theory.[4]
I know of no other discipline having such great opposition from so many angles.
True, most of the suggested reforms are no better than relativity itself. It
would be overwhelming for the editor of a news magazine like Physics Today to choose among them. It
is much easier to assume “Einstein is always right.” Any mention of him in a
less than favorable light gets the circular file.
[1] Hatch, Ronald R.,
1995, Relativity and GPS, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern
Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 1-26
[https://go.glennborchardt.com/Hatch-GPS].
[2] Borchardt, Glenn,
2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, p. 242 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[4] de Climont, Jean,
2018, The worldwide list of alternative theories and critics
[http://go.glennborchardt.com/declimont16dissidentlist].
Posts
2 comments:
Of course, name calling is the weapon of last resort for despaired incompetent losers. But despite Dave’s very extensive analysis, I still feel that two or three points haven’t been covered.
First of all: crackpots exist! Being critical of Einstein, GR or BBT doesn’t automatically mean that one's alternative “theory” is worthy of concern. Of course, the opposite isn’t true either, but we can’t ignore the fact that some (lots!) are cranks who deserve the epithet. Yes, it’s a shame that they would be put in the same basket as you, Lerner, Van Flanders, Radcliffe, Marmet and others who are genuine researchers with respectable credentials. But then again, mainstream physicists, after a century of professing their absurd dogmas, are the only ones to blame for the very existence of crackpots.
Secondly, when accusing Einstein of being “wrong” (or GR, or Newton, for that matter), one should avoid the trap of mixing up hypotheses with conclusions. Einstein had this very peculiar way of thinking that, from his own admission, was more heuristic than pragmatic. You wrote about this many times yourself: “right for the wrong reason”. We should not overlook that in formal logic, deriving correct conclusions from incorrect premisses is perfectly valid. Look up “Material Conditional” in Wikipedia; it says: “P implies Q does not specify a causal relationship between P and Q”, even though the statement “P implies Q” may be true with P false. In that way, it’s not Einstein who'se wrong, and it’s not GR that’s wrong; it’s the claim that there would be a “causal relationship” between photons and solar panels, between contracting lengths and the Lorentz transform, and between curved space time and GPS. Compare this to Hawking, who also started from wrong assumptions, but ended with totally useless conclusions...
Thirdly and finally, the idea that GPS's wouldn’t work if Einstein was wrong, is such a gross sophism that even a child wouldn’t buy it, barring serious mental ailment. In neomechanics, gravitational force will still be mass times mass divided by distance squared, and gravitational redshift will still be the square root of one minus mass divided by distance times the speed of light squared. I’m willing to bet my pay check against yours that when a purely neomechanically-based theory of gravity is completed, it will include the exact same field equations that GR does, barring the cosmological constant which will be replaced by a term coherent with an infinite universe. GR doesn’t deserve being thrown away any more than Newron's did; it needs improvement so that it becomes predictive of infinity.
Another great blog on the absurdities in orthodox physics and cosmology.
David de Hilster, scientist and president of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society comments about this blog in an excellent video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEYNi60G2OM&feature=youtu.be&t=3. In my book Notfinity Process:Microcosms-in-Motion (available in April 2019) which highlights 50 invalidating problems with the Big Bang theory, discusses how those who determine the allocation of science funding, only direct money to those who support present consensus paradigms in physics and cosmology. Those brave scientists such as the late astronomer Halton C Arp, who still insist on pursuing the truth, endure serious sanctions from the scientific establishment, including losing their jobs. For those who do not already know, Arp was a great admirer of Borchardt’s work.
Also in the May 1, 2019 issue of a new science magazine at www.sciencewoke.org I write about the Big Bang in an article titled “Big Problem with the Big Bang theory,” which discusses the fact that the best “evidence” for the Big Bang theory is the cosmic microwave background, which does not actually require the Big Bang hypothesis of a photon-decoupling period.
Post a Comment