Welcome to the new Woodmann RCE Messageboards Regroupment
Please be patient while the rest of the site is restored.

To all Members of the old RCE Forums:
In order to log in, it will be necessary to reset your forum login password ("I forgot my password") using the original email address you registered with. You will be sent an email with a link to reset your password for that member account.

The old vBulletin forum was converted to phpBB format, requiring the passwords to be reset. If this is a problem for some because of a forgotten email address, please feel free to re-register with a new username. We are happy to welcome old and new members back to the forums! Thanks.

All new accounts are manually activated before you can post. Any questions can be PM'ed to Kayaker.

Einstein was wrong about time, Newton was right.

Post Reply
Senior Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:00 am

Einstein was wrong about time, Newton was right.

Post by WaxfordSqueers »

Einstein made a grievous error in his assumption about time in his theory of relativity. He claimed time is 'the hand on a clock'. Come on, Albert, we're doing physics here.

Time is a human invention based on the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation. In the Egyptian era of the Pharoahs, they used sun dials and no one talked about time as an entity that could expand or contract. Einstein et al should have clued in that Sun dials offer time as the position of the Sun in the sky. Ergo, it has to be related somehow to the relative position of the Earth as it rotates.

Fast forward at least a 1000 years when sailors were sailing the ocean blue. They could get their position north-south using a sextant and the angle the horizon made with the Sun at noon. The Sun, again, and the horizon, representing the relationship between the Sun and the rotating horizon. The sailors needed a time-piece, not to measure a phenomenon called time, but to generate it. They needed to keep tract of the displacement of their ships from a certain point on land.

Time came into being when someone set up a machine to synchronize with the rotation of the Earth. They measured the position of the Sun and allowed the machine to run till the Sun was in exactly the same position the next day. The day, as we know it now, had yet to be invented but when the rotating device had a mark indicating the amount it had turned between Sun sightings, that became the length of a day. It was a matter of then gearing the device to turn exactly once between daily Sun sightings and the clock as we know it today came into being. Obviously it was modified to create 2 x 12 hour periods but some people still use the 24 hour clock.

Back to the oceans. The sailors needed distance markers so someone invented a system of dividing the 360 degrees around a circle of latitude in 24 equal segments of 15 degrees each. Why 24?? Don't know. Anyway, those 24 divisions became lines of longitude and the hour. That's right, an hour of rotation is about 15 degrees of rotation. They needed smaller divisions, however, so the hour was broken into minutes and seconds and so was the 15 degrees of longitude.

Time and the Earth's angular velocity/displacement go hand in hand. Since the Earth's angular velocity is a constant for all intents and purposes, so is time. The Earth's rotational velocity does vary by fractions of a second but that does not amount to a hill of beans. Newton claimed time is absolute and Einstein argued that time can dilate. Seems E. was wrong, so there goes space-time curvature and all the modern pseudo-science about gravity not being a force but an anomaly of space-time curvature.
User avatar
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 11:00 am

Post by Kayaker »

Hard to argue the logic of all that, but there's something off about that explanation. Too simple an argument? When you start boggling over concepts like, inertial frames of references moving relative to each other to describe time and space, whether gravity really is a weak extrusion from a higher dimension, time dilation is now proven with a particle accelerator, and a whole quantum world is out there, how can any theory make sense?

I'm still waiting on what dark energy and dark matter play in all this, I'm holding my bets off until then.

I do like the idea that the Pharoahs might have had it right all along though.
Senior Member
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:12 am

Post by blabberer »

neithhop is just a part of 25 % visible light matter invisible or darkness accounts for the remaining 75%

पादेषु सर्वभूतानि पुंसः स्थितिपदो विदुः ।
अमृतं क्षेममभयं त्रिमूर्ध्नोऽधायि मूर्धसु ॥ १८॥

and iirc neutrinos didnt reach 60 nano seconds earlier and was alluded to an optical measurement error
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:53 pm

Post by Elenil »

having a quarz clock there certainly factors that effect the quarz like heat or in low numbers gravitation
at some point heat, waveforms being the same there probaly more factors that could affect the quarz

gravity being a form of movement having its reason not in form of being attracted or forced together
but in form of some kind of movement having its reason in trigonometry/curvature close to a "planet system"

i doubt the theory will work as time travel so if you can reach something close to light speed you could travel in time
as this would "escape" for example the gravity system

what questions are to made on such existing problems?
does a stone fall down ? (gravity question)
do i have to sum apples ?
do i have a force to calc (bar (air), ampere, pressure (water), joule, kwatt´s (combustion engine)

the photon being sayed to be a fundamental/elemental particle how could it be a red blue and green photon?
this then leads the the electron question
but if a photon is made of electrons the photon doesnt exits
if its a massform in form of a classical wave form model (gamma rays, visable light rays,uv rays,radio waves ect)
the photon again doesnt stand the question of being a fundamental/elemental particle
then the question about a photon looks to incomplete for me
can the mass be 0 for "photons" ?

having e = mc^2 vs max planks "photon" e = hc/λ

this opens many new questions from mass to energy

the time question not directly being in those first questions
Senior Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:00 am

Post by WaxfordSqueers »

Kayaker wrote:Too simple an argument?
You have to consider that Einstein et al are offering an argument that is far too complex and based on thought-experiment rather than the scientific method. Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, claimed the general relativity theory is not even a theory since it is laden with suppositions that have been converted to pseudo-fact via consensus.

The basic relativity theory is sound and Einstein admitted that it could be worked out using Newtonian physics. My argument is about inferences made by Einstein and others that have never been proved. You don't need time dilation inference to apply relativity theory to the orbit of Mercury to explain it's apparent retrograde motion at certain points in its orbit wrt Earth. And there is no need to replace the well proved theory of gravity as a force with a whimsical theory about the universe being made up of space-time distortions to replace gravitational theory.
Kayaker wrote:...time dilation is now proven with a particle accelerator...
Again...it is the consensus that it has been proved. How does one prove that time is dilating when no one can prove what it is? I have yet to see one concrete definition of time in any physics text.

IMHO, Einstein, who dabbled in thought experiments rather that proving facts in a lab (he left it to others to do the lab work), made the mistake of using kinematics as the basis of his theory rather than the real forces and masses upon which kinematics is based. He studied motion using acceleration as a base while ignoring the relationship between the forces causing the masses to accelerate.

When a force is applied to a mass, like when a dragster accelerations from 0 to 100 mph in 3 seconds, the human mind can see the acceleration, so acceleration is a real phenomenon. However, we humans needed to measure the acceleration so we invented time using a machine (clock) that generated time. Consequently, time became integrated into the mathematical definition of acceleration. It appears Albert ignored that consequence, presuming, unlike Newton, that time could change.

s = 1/2at^2 describes acceleration, where s = distance. The equation is telling us that the distance covered by a mass is proportion to the square of time, where time is based on the second, a human invention (1 second = 1/86,400th of one Earth rotation). Conceivably, we can transpose the equation as follows: t = root(2s/a). It appears Einstein et al have done exactly that by presuming time is an independent phenomenon. However, we have already defined time based on one rotation of the Earth, from which the second is derived and it's a constant.

There have been many claims of a proof that time dilates but not one has actually proved it in reality. They have set up experiments based on general relativity theory and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. I think if they dismissed GRT for the time being and examined the phenomenon using only the forces and masses involved, they could explain the situation without resorting to time dilation.

For example, it is claimed that time dilation is involved in GPS systems. It so happens that I have studied communication systems as part of my electronics career/training and I know that GPS is similar to the older Loran C systems which used a form of triangulation to find the position of a target. In a GPS system, satellites are in constant communication with ground stations and the communication medium is electromagnetic waves. The main difference is in the relative speed of the sats wrt to the EM wave fronts through which they communicate.

An EM wave is simply an alternating electric/magnetic field, with the electric wave perpendicular to the magnetic wave. At a certain frequency, the spacing between wavefront intensities, the wavelength, is fixed wrt the frequency. If that wave is emitted by a source moving relative to the target, or vice versa, the receiving antenna will receive it at a slightly different frequency/wavelength than it was emitted (Doppler shifting). If you can consider the EM wave a form of mass, if only in that it is real, then the problem is about two masses moving at different velocities, not about time.

Each sat in a GPS system has it's own atomic clock and each ground station has the same. Problem is, the sats run on a different time system than the ground stations and they must be synchronized to each other and to the EM signals with which they communicate. I presume that the frequency of the EM carrier (the central transmission frequency about which information is modulated) is encoded in the information it carries. There will be other info encoded to indicate the time. With the velocity of EM radiation in space known it is a matter of adjusting the received signals frequency and the synchronization of the time clocks.

Some people refer to that as time dilation but I prefer to see it for what it is. A real, electromagnetic wave takes time, based on our absolute time, to reach a moving satellite target. Each wavefront, a real physical phenomenon, is seen by the satellite receiver differently than the transmitter, therefore a relativity adjustment is required. There is no change in time, only in the viewing of the EM wave front by the sats moving at a relatively high velocity wrt the ground stations.

Besides, there is no known instrument that can measure time dilation, even if it did exist. What exactly would it be measuring and based on what standard? We can compare the acceleration of masses due to real forces using a weigh scale. It measures weight. What is being measured when we talk about time dilation?

So, this problem in relativity is between a moving EM wavefront and the antenna on a satellite moving away from it, toward it, or directly overhead. Nothing to do with time which is nothing more than a thought process in the human mind. Of course, if the human mind fails to be aware of the reality, it can mistakenly presume the illusion in its mind is changing. Such is the danger of thought experiment and mathematics lacking a concrete reality.

I agree with you that we are getting lost these days in thought processes rather than finding ways to do direct measurement. As physicist David Bohm pointed out, an equation with no reality to back it is garbage. Bohm also pointed out that we humans invented time.

The quantum world is not exempt from illusion. The basis of quantum theory is sound since it can be corroborated. Linus Pauling put it to good use back in the 1920/30 era to predict the shapes of molecules. However, he had to modify Schrodinger's equation somewhat and add his own experience of molecular shapes based on xray diffraction.

Having spent my entire career in and around electronics theory I'd dearly love to know how the electron interacts with the nucleus. Is it a tiny particle orbiting a nucleus with protons and neutrons and is it confined to certain quantum orbital levels as Planck suggested. That theory, based on Schrodinger's equation, in which the electron's relationship to the nucleus becomes a complex differential equation in which the energy orbitals are the many solutions, has been effectively applied in electronics, molecular biology, thermodynamics, etc., and completely ignored by modern climate modelers.

Ironically, Bohr, who started it all, apparently with Rutherford, later got himself involved in sci-fi related to quantum theory. That's when the weirdness began about particles being in different spaces at the same time (entanglement theory). Schrodinger immediately distanced himself from the sci-fi, as well as Einstein. Unfortunately the sci-fi vesrion of quantum theory has persisted till today.

In an equally ironic manner, Einstein distanced himself from the quirky side of quantum theory, claiming theories like entanglement theory lacked the physical reality he cherished. Then he went ahead and did the same by producing time dilation and space-time curvature as thought experiments. Sure, this can be verified by believers but they just can't equate the math to the reality. As Feynman put it re quantum theory, it works, but no one knows why.
Senior Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:00 am

Post by WaxfordSqueers »

blabberer wrote:and iirc neutrinos didnt reach 60 nano seconds earlier and was alluded to an optical measurement error
I could not follow the puns in Arabic, or whatever you printed, since Google choked on it. However, neutrinos certainly could throw a wrench into the works of general relativity theory.

Einstein said as much. It has been debated for a long time whether light needs a medium in space for transmission, possibly limiting its speed. Dayton Miller was a proponent of an aether in empty space and Einstein claimed that if Miller is right, his GRT theory goes out the window. Till recently, no one had found an aether but modern research has found empty space teeming with neutrinos.

If I get your last point correctly, someone had inferred that neutrinos 'should' reach a point at a certain time before they were supposed to. Since they did not, it was inferred there was an issue with the optics. The same has been implied about the Michelsen-Morley experiment that apparently pinned the speed of light at its present velocity. I fear that science has become an appeal to authority with many scientists lacking the courage to question it. It's easier to go along than to get along.

All visible light in the universe, as we know it, is emitted by electrons in orbit around a nucleus, as the electrons drop to a lower quantum energy orbital. Not sure about stars, which are so hot the electrons are boiled off the hydrogen and helium atoms making up the stars. Stars actually emit a solar wind which is made up of electrons and the single proton making up the hydrogen nucleus. Therefore, it's not clear to me whether protons can emit EM when they move at speeds akin to the electron in its orbit.

Anyway, what is limiting the speed at which light (EM) leaves the electron as it jumps to a lower energy level? Could it be the neutrinos is space? And if there are no neutrinos to impede it, could light move faster?

And what is gravity? It takes light 8 minutes to get here from the Sun but it appears that gravity acts instantly. That could be explained with gravity as a field, which is always there and in action, rather than the corpuscular nature of light that takes time to travel. In any event, how can that field be replaced by a space-time field made up up of nothing more than human thoughts and their mathematical inference?
Senior Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:00 am

Post by WaxfordSqueers »

Elenil wrote:having a quarz clock there certainly factors that effect the quarz like heat or in low numbers gravitation at some point heat, waveforms being the same there probaly more factors that could affect the quarz
I have no problem with that as long as we keep in mind that the quartz is the basis of a machine that 'generates' time representing the physical position of the Earth in it's rotation. The quartz clock is not measuring an independent phenomenon called time. On the other hand, a simple bathroom scale measures the real effect of Earth's gravity on the mass of a human body, a property we call weight.
Elenil wrote:gravity being a form of movement having its reason not in form of being attracted or forced together but in form of some kind of movement having its reason in trigonometry/curvature close to a "planet system"
I have no problem with that either if the curvature to which you refer is related to the vector quantities of a mass moving under the influence of gravitational force. That's not what space-time infers, however, it implies a real phenomenon called time interacting with a real empty space, both of which can somehow bend and cause catastrophic action, like the fictitious black hole. No one has explained how that could possibly happen, it is presumed, and based on an appeal to authority and a broad consensus.
Elenil wrote:i doubt the theory will work as time travel so if you can reach something close to light speed you could travel in time as this would "escape" for example the gravity system
We know the source of light. When an electron in an atom drops to a lower quantum energy level, it emits a quanta of electromagnetic energy, part of which is visible light. Or, when an electron, which is a particle with mass that carries a negative electrical charge, moves through space, it generates an electrical and magnetic field around it. electric + magnetic = electromagnetic = light. Works the same in a conductor wherein electrons in motion produce an electric and magnetic field around the conductor. That is the basis of electric motors and transformers.

We have no idea what causes gravity, nor did Einstein seem to care. He considered only the effect of gravity, its acceleration on a mass, and concluded that all accelerations are equivalent. In other words, he put the cart before the horse and proceed as if that is normal. It's not really, since the force produced by gravity has an unknown source and is more akin to the attraction of metal to a magnet than to a generalized force. Therefore, assumptions were made that lead to time being a force itself, which can affect forces and masses.

Einstein claimed that gravity can bend light but can it? If we don't know what causes gravity how can we claim it bends light. Something bends light but light, as electromagnetic energy, with an electric and magnetic field, should respond to other electric and magnetic fields surrounding matter. The notion that the Sun can bend light has nothing to do with its mass-related gravitational field and far more to do with the bazzillions of electric charges within the Sun.

And where does time come into that, equating gravity to light? It can't. Time is a constant as defined by humans and based on the constant angular velocity of the Earth's rotation. It does not exist elsewhere in space except in projections into space by the human mind as thought. Time does not belong in physics other than as a tool to measure changing quantities. Physicist David Bohm claimed we may have to re-invent science based on observations without time. In other words, we'll have to look more closely at the relationship between forces and masses, and what affects what.

I think you mentioned the effect of light on the human eye related to colour, asking (facetiously I hope) whether protons came in greens, blues, reds, etc. Many people don't get it that visible light has no colour and that the human eye adds the colour when it is stimulated by different frequencies of EM. Again, how can a particle have a frequency, unless, like the electron, it's frequency is related to it's angular velocity as it moves in a curved orbit?
Elenil wrote:what questions are to made on such existing problems?
does a stone fall down ? (gravity question)
do i have to sum apples ?
do i have a force to calc (bar (air), ampere, pressure (water), joule, kwatt´s (combustion engine)
Those are interesting questions in themselves. A stone moves toward the direction of the centre of gravitational attraction, unless another force acts to change that direction (Newton). Therefore, 'up' and 'down' become relative to the centre of gravity and the position of the object.

In his book on heat, Planck pointed out that we humans invented many common terms, like time, temperature, density, etc. Temperature is a relative measure of heat which Clausius defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. Therefore heat is real (a form fo energy) but temperature is an artificial measurement of heat based on the freezing and boiling points of water.

The photon is not a fundamental particle, it is also an invention defined as having momentum but no mass. There is a debate as to whether EM is a waveform or a series of particles. In some cases, it is easier to visualize EM as a particle but EM has no mass, therefore a particle was defined (the photon) to represent a particle of EM.

The photon is not made of electrons, it is energy emitted by electrons. I prefer to call it a quantum of energy since it doesn't really appear as a particle when emitted. Theoretically, and no one knows this, if you had an electron emitting EM, it should emit EM in all directions. How can a particle be emitted in all directions? The photon is like the 'hole' concept used to represent minority or majority carriers in semiconductors. A current flow occurs when charges on electrons move electron to electron through a conductor. At the same time, the electron moves physically but at a much slower speed than the charges.

In a semiconductor, silicon is 'doped' with impurities to create an excess of electrons or a lack of electrons. Where a lack of electrons occur, they are called holes. In other words, holes are empty spaces in the valence shells of atoms that could be occupied by an electron. If an electron vacates a position is a valence shell, it leaves behind 'no electron' which is considered a hole. If you visualize electrons moving through a conductor, or a semiconductor, the electrons move one way and the holes vacated by electrons move in the other direction.

The scientist who invented the concept of hole flow, Shockley, admitted he introduced it as a model not a reality. Holes can represent an electric current no more than a hole dug in the ground, filled in, then dug again nearby can represent a movement of anything other than dirt. Same with a photon. It's a concept, a model, used to particalize light. The equation for the photon is E = hf, where f represents the frequency of the emitting electron, h is Planck's constant, and E = the potential voltage difference between the orbital level(s) and electron jumped to cause the Em emission. The frequency of the electron comes from its orbital angular velocity so how can a particle, as a photon, have a frequency?
Elenil wrote:...having e = mc^2 vs max planks "photon" e = hc/λ...
Please not that e = hc/λ is the same as e = hf, as used earlier.

The first question I have about e = mc^2, is what energy is being described? Einstein seemed to think that EM energy absorbed by a mass via electrons must increase the mass of the receiving mass. It is known that EM absorbed by a mass increases the heat content of a mass, hence its temperature,but that's a transformation of energy to energy, not a transformation of energy to mass.

Again, what energy was Einstein referring to? Did he get that wrong too? I have heard the equation is related to the development of the atomic bomb but in such a detonation, it's not like mass, such as electrons, protons and neutrons is being converted to energy directly. A tremendous amount of heat and EM energy is released from a small amount of plutonium but that process cannot be reversed. The plutonium is blown to smithereens and creates the radioactive particles that pollute the environment. Neither heat nor EM can create that pollution due to the mass of the plutonium.

I think scientists have got to stop worshipping science gods and do their own science. Science now operates on entrenched paradigms and corrupt peer review processes and is very resistant to change. Kids in schools these days are being taught utter rubbish and if they complain or question, they are booted out of class.
User avatar
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:00 pm

Post by evaluator »

you wrote so much 'chars', that my eyes disagree to read. but I want to say, I also not trust EInStone :)
for example, I think, he built the theory of constant light speed on the formula, and not vice versa
Senior Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:00 am

Post by WaxfordSqueers »

evaluator wrote:I think, he built the theory of constant light speed on the formula, and not vice versa
I agree. He came in the back door, as we like to put it at times in the West.

It's hard to second guess someone like Einstein and I still give him benefit of the doubt. However, Louis Essen, an expert on time, who developed the atomic clock, inferred that Einstein was wrong. At least, he implied that much of the theory of relativity is based on inference rather than physical fact. For example, time dilation is an inference. No one has ever measured it because there is nothing to measure. Time is defined based on the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation, which is a constant. Therefore, time cannot dilate since it is defined as a constant.

The speed of light is another matter. When E. made that statement, it was not clearly understood how light, as electromagnetic radiation, was created. We now know it is largely due to electrons around atoms changing energy levels. When an electron drops through a potential energy level of so many electron volts between energy levels, it emits a quantum of electromagnetic energy with the intensity of the difference between energy levels in eV and with the frequency of the electron in its orbit. If that frequency falls in the visible spectrum it is called light.

No one knows why electrons emit light at a constant speed, in fact, I doubt if anyone has measured each frequency of light to verify that. The experiments by Mickelsen and Morley were very generalized to a large group of light frequencies clustered together as a beam. It is also known that gravity acts instantaneously. However, gravity is a field and no one knows how it operates. I can say one thing, it has nothing to do with time and space as E. implied. If anything, gravity is related to nuclear forces in atoms. That is implied because plumb bobs used in surveying in the Himalaya were drawn horizontally by the sheer mass of the mountains.
Post Reply