0
   

Einstein made fatal errors in his theory of relativity?

 
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 09:40 pm
I believe Einstein made 2 fatal errors in assuming that nothing can travel faster than light and that light is without mass. It is these errors that necessitate the need for a fourth dimension, ie: the theory of relativity. I will now attempt to show that there is no need for any such theory, that Newtonian physics still suffice and that this is actually pretty simple once you accept that matter can travel faster than light and that light is not without mass.

If I understand Einstein correctly;
1. When ever matter is accelerated infinitely close to light speed, it becomes infinitely massive and therefore can not obtain light speed. This strikes me as utter nonsense.
2. Space is not a 3 dimensional place. Time becomes a variable just like width. Some astrophysicists are now coming up with theories that contain additional dimensions. I believe this is to stay within the accepted principles of Einstein. This also strikes me as nonsense.
3. Einstein did not ascribe mass to light. This too, I believe incorrect.
4. I should clarify that I've never interpreted Einstein's theories for myself. I'm not even sure I could. I am very grateful to scientists like Stephen Hawkings for "dumbing" it down for me, and hope that my understanding of their interpretations is sufficiently correct for my thesis.

Now, on to my so-called proof.
Before we can even address this issue, we must first accept that black holes do indeed exist. I believe this has been proven many times, though indirectly, by objects like this: http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/news/GRS1915n105.html

It is widely accepted that our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf and that if it was 5 to 15 times larger in would eventually become a neutron star. A black hole is simply the next step in this equation. If you do not understand and accept this, then nothing else I say is going to make much sense.

The object at GRS1915n105 is one of many examples of a micro quasar or binary system. It has been measured ejecting matter at a significant fraction of light speed. I'm not convinced that the original, super luminous, measurement was inaccurate This micro-quasar, by definition is far from being the most powerful quasar in the universe. As the reams of astrophysical data currently being processed become available, I'm confident that measured super luminous speeds are going to be proven.

Einstein predicted that a black hole would be sufficiently dense to not allow even light to escape its event horizon. This I agree with completely. Where I dissent, is the reason for this phenomenon. I do ascribe mass to light. I have a pet theory that light is unique in that it only exists at a certain infinitely narrow speed range, much like water is only liquid in a certain temperature range. If slowed down, or speeded up; it becomes something else entirely. For the purpose of my thesis, I do not find it necessary to know what it becomes.

My theory is that an event horizon is the threshold where all matter is accelerated beyond the speed of light, and therefore can not be seen. By accepting black holes at all; you are accepting that matter can be infinitely dense; and therefore can have an infinitely powerful gravitational pull. In this model you will see that the radius of an event horizon is not static, but rather it is variable depending upon the mass of the object being accelerated. I believe at some point in the future this may be proven by measuring when objects of different masses appear to disappear when traveling towards a black hole. I further theorize that beyond the event horizon; matter continues to accelerate to infinitely super luminous speeds a microsecond before impact (perhaps even c squared in the case of a super massive black hole).

I don't mean to give the impression that I think Einstein was wrong about everything. I, too, think he was easily the greatest thinker of his time. However, his calculations pre-date many of our best detection techniques; forcing him to make assumptions that in some cases can be replaced with opposing facts today.

I believe the biggest of these errors is his assumption that light is without mass. If light were without mass; then of course you would have come up with something (time as a variable dimension for instance) to explain light's inability to escape a black hole. Einstein's assumption that light was without mass came at a time when science was still getting used to the idea that light wasn't instantaneous. Once you've accepted that light is not without mass; than you can assume that gravity can affect it without considering time a variable dimension. If a black hole can be infinitely dense, than you have to admit that its gravitational fields can be powerful enough to trap light. Hence, you've eliminated the need to consider time a variable dimension. If modern science still considered light to be without mass; than Einstein's theory would still be relevant (pun intended). Since we can now assume light has mass, it is not necessary. If I can move a lever with my hand; I don't reach for additional tools to assist me.

In the binary system located at: http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/news/GRS1915n105.html we've seen matter other than light travel at, at least, near light speed. That system is relatively small (micro-quasar) compared to other known systems. When you consider that binary systems can be 1 million times (pick your own #) more powerful, how can you not assume they could attract/eject matter at much higher velocities? Would you consider it possible for a very massive black hole to orbit a super massive black hole prior to being devoured? If so; it could make that micro-quasar above look like the earth and the moon by comparison.

After the text body on that page "John A. Biretta of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore cautions that the researchers haven't pinned down the distance to the object ejecting the gas, thought to be a neutron star or black hole that steals matter from a less-dense companion. If this binary star lies much closer to the Earth than the 40,000 light years they estimate, the blobs would still be cruising, but not at superluminal speeds', he says." Funny; he doesn't point out that if this binary system lies much further from earth, than we've already witnessed superluminal speeds! I think these guys get a mental block at the thought of one of their laws being bunk!

In the equation e=mc2; light speed is multiplied by light speed to = Energy. I am merely suggesting infinity doesn't begin at c… c squared, perhaps, but we have no need for such an equation at this time. Considering we will likely never get to peer inside the event horizon of a black hole, I doubt we ever will.

Conclusion: Once you accept that matter can travel faster than light there is no need for a fourth dimension. Newtonian physics will suffice just fine. I find this explanation far simpler and therefore have to assume it is correct.

As you can tell by my chosen name on A2K, I am a big believer in Occom's razor.
For the record, I am obviously not a professional physicist, just an enthusiast who is anxious to understand why I am wrong. If indeed, I am. Can anyone help?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,638 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:14 pm
If you excite an electron it will emit a photon right? If you keep on exciting it you will keep getting more and more photons right? How could an electron keep doing that indefinately if each photon has mass? Like you Bill I'm not up to speed on the details but that was the first question that came to mind when I read your idea.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:18 pm
I'm not sure I understand your question. "Indefinitely" it couldn't or a single light bulb would light up the earth, no?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:19 pm
Neutrinos have mass. Some.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:30 pm
I meant as in a laser. You excite the atoms using electricity and they emit photons. As far as I know, (which isn't really all that far), the same atoms can be excited over and over. In a light bulb the only reason they blow is because of the heat.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:31 pm
Quote:
"In an old zinc mine 2,000 feet beneath the Japanese Alps, an international team of physicists has discovered that a ubiquitous, ghostly subatomic particle called the neutrino -- previously thought to have no mass at all, like a beam of light -- actually weighs in at about one ten-millionth the mass of the electron."
http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/post.html

I post this only to demonstrate that we may simply lack the ability to detect the mass of a photon. Hawkings theorized it would take a particle accelerator the size of the milky way to do the job.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:38 pm
Further clarification: If we don't know, and we are going to guess, why not make a guess that would result in the simplest solution being correct? Wouldn't that be the most logical?
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:39 pm
Fair enough. What about the time problem. When velocity increases time slows down. That has been demonstrated in real world experiments. How would you be able to rationalise that using Newtonian physics.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:42 pm
Do you by any chance have a link to support this? I have not been able to find any experiment that successfully demonstrated this.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:51 pm
I've never put up a link so this might take a few tries.

Atomic Clock Corrections

The corrections are already being made to account for relativity in clocks used for the GPS.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:13 pm
Just found a better link. See the part about time dilation and also the bit about neutrinos.

Relativity link
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 11:44 pm
Thank you for the great link. I'm afraid I will have to read its content repeatedly before I can fully understand the implications.


Quote:
So the details are not known, but it seems that neutrinos have a tiny bit of rest mass, and thus travel slightly less than the speed of light.

This statement seems to imply that neutrinos travel slightly less than the speed of light simply because the theory is being applied. In the event this slight variation is justified, I still don't see how a slight variation could validate the assumption "nothing can travel faster than light". The difference in gravitational pull between a relatively small black hole and a super massive one, I would think, would easily more than compensate for the difference.
I'll have to study further. I may have to retract my belief that Newtonian science suffices. I fear I am woefully ill equipped to conclude whether or not those experiments have sufficient controls to constitute proof. Boy, do I feel stupid right now.
Thank you for the awesome link. Do you see any other flaws?
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 12:40 am
I think all you need do is drop the "Newtonian" part and insert "Euclidean".
There are quite a few people out there trying to work around relativity perhaps some of these may help strengthen your case.

Relativity vs Classical Physics

Classical Physics Replacement for Relativity

I don't understand a lot of what's in there, but some of it seems to make sense.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 05:54 am
THis is already in demo at the Lincoln Lab. Scientists have porpogated a particle that traveled at 1.2 times c. Now conceptualizing it means that it arrived at its target before it was prpogated.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:13 am
I've long been of the opinion that the physics of Einstein and some others is just another religion. That is not to say religion or physics is wrong. Both are based on hearsay evidence and little real evidence. I have to go now, but I will attempt to evaluate your alternative physics later. Neil
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 03:44 pm
Re: Einstein made fatal errors in his theory of relativity?
In 1905, Einstein derived his "Special Theory of Relativity" in a paper, the English translation of which is "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." In this paper, he makes only two assumptions:

1. The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.
2. If any observer measures something as travelling at the speed of light, all will, regardless of their relative motions.

From only these two assumptions, he derived all of relativistic mechanics, except for the inclusion of gravity. That is, he derived the speed of light as an upper theoretical limit for all speeds; he derived time dilation, length contraction, the laws governing simultaneity. Since then, there have been almost countless laboratory verifications of every aspect of Special Relativity. For example, particle accelerators are based on relativistic mechanics and would not work at all if it were not obeyed to many decimal places or if Newtonian mechanics applied at speeds close to that of light. There are countless verifications of relativistic time dilation such as, for instance, comparison of the half lives of high speed particles with the same particles when at rest, and measurements using atomic clocks carried in airplanes. The relativisitic predictions as to times, distances, masses, etc. appear to be obeyed exactly.

Forgive me, but you appear to have dismissed centuries of careful, cumulative, deductive, mathematical scientific theory, without bothering to acquaint yourself with that theory. Since current mainstream scientific papers use a process of step by step, linear deduction, usually mostly mathematical, and your argument is a somewhat unclear series of verbal arguments, I cannot grant what you have said much credibility.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 04:50 pm
Brandon9000
Fair enough. I've demanded no credibility be afforded me. I am simply trying to learn. And, thanks to posters like Adrian, I've already learned more than I'd hoped I would. I've only spent a few hundred hours researching the topic, which could hardly be considered comprehensive, but, I don't consider myself completely ignorant either. Any internet references you'd like to share would be most welcome. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 05:00 pm
farmerman wrote:
This is already in demo at the Lincoln Lab. Scientists have porpogated a particle that traveled at 1.2 times c. Now conceptualizing it means that it arrived at its target before it was prpogated.


This is precisely the reason I began this journey. Hawking speaks as though Einstein considered "Nothing can travel faster than light" an absolute law of physics. Any thoughts like "Now conceptualizing it means that it arrived at its target before it was prpogated", is one example of what I believe are a great number of errors related to Einstein's work.
I suspect; since Einstein was so much smarter than the rest of us; there is a tendency to accept some of his theory as fact.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 05:07 pm
Bill

I fixed the last lot of links, don't know what I did. I think I might change sides for a while and argue for you.

Brandon

Good points but can you please explain how particle accelerators rely on relativistic mechanics.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 05:21 pm
Thanks Adrian, but your links were "printed" clearly enough. I'm currently taking a crash course in quantum physics per your direction.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Einstein made fatal errors in his theory of relativity?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 11:19:33