Friday, November 18, 2005 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Seed magazine

Seed magazine seems really serious about creating a highly stimulating environment for important scientific ideas. Their five categories in the front of our minds are

  • Einstein
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Science/Religion
  • String Theory
That's a pretty exciting mixture of topics and many people may have a lot of fun when Seed magazine really starts.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (1) :

reader nigel said...

Dear Lumos,

I'm glad that you appreciate Einstein, who replaced special relativity with general relativity that deals with absolute motions like rotation (which is centripetal acceleration) and straight line acceleration. All accelerative motions are absolute, so I'm glad you don't worship the Einstein haters (special relativity worshippers):

Just to remind ourselves of what Einstein and his verifier Sir Arthur Eddington wrote on this:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity….’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus…. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – A.S. Eddington, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

So the contraction of the Michelson-Morley instrument made it fail to detect absolute motion. This is why special relativity needs replacement with a causal general relativity:

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden university lecture ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, 1952, p. 23.)

‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v168, 1951, p906. (If you have a kid playing with magnets, how do you explain the pull and push forces felt through space? As ‘magic’?)

‘Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.’ – Dr David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.

Templeton Foundation awarded PCW Davies $1M for religion, after Davies, a physics professor, wrote a lot of popular books about the beauty of mysterious and unexplained equations. The award ceremony was in a London cathedral.

In 1995, physicist Davies wrote on pp54-57 of his book ‘About Time’:

‘Whenever I read dissenting views of time, I cannot help thinking of Herbert Dingle… who wrote … Relativity for All, published in 1922. He became Professor … at University College London… In his later years, Dingle began seriously to doubt Einstein’s concept … Dingle … wrote papers for journals pointing out Einstein’s errors and had them rejected … In October 1971, J.C. Hafele [used atomic clocks to defend Einstein] … You can’t get much closer to Dingle’s ‘everyday’ language than that.’

Now, let’s check out J.C. Hafele.

J. C. Hafele is not horses***. Hafele writes in Science vol. 177 (1972) pp 166-8 that he uses G. Builder (1958) as analysis for the atomic clocks.

G. Builder (1958) is an article called ‘ETHER AND RELATIVITY’ in Australian Journal of Physics, v11, 1958, p279, which states:

‘… we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks… does indeed compel us to recognise the CAUSAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ABSOLUTE velocities.’

Wonder why the ‘defenders of Einstein’ don’t attack general relativity? I suppose they are too busy defending obsolete special relativity, which only applies to non-accelerating motion….