Einstein was a genius in explaining away the Michelson-Morley experiment. But he thus allowed a lifeline to the geocentrists, and others!

His theory may be correct. It may turn out to be wrong.

But for a human being, has he been elevated a tad too high by some writers?

eg

James Gleick: "There will never be another Einstein. Einstein's genius seemed nearly divine in its creative powers. He imagined a certain universe and this universe was born."

Carl Lanczos: "Einstein wrote his name in the annals of science in indelible ink which will not fade as long as men live on the earth. There is a finality about his discoveries which cannot be shaken . Theories come, theories go. Einstein did more than formulate theories. He listened with supreme devotion to the silent voices of the universe and wrote down their message with unfailing
certainty. He was never deceived by appearances and his findings had to be acknowledged as irrefutable."

Paul Davie's and John Gribben: "All the implications of special relativity have been confirmed by direct experiments. There are still people who believe it is 'just a theory.' But they are wrong."

Isaac Asimov:

"No physicist who is even marginally sane doubts the validity of special relativity."

Clifford Will: "Special relativity is so much a part not only of physics but of everyday life, that it is no longer appropriate to view it as the special "theory" of relativity. It is a fact."

If my Theory is correct, E=MC^2 will be lifted trillions of times higher than it already is!

RussT
Singularity=Galaxy

So Saint, are you jalous of all the praise Einstein gets for his wonderfully imaginative mind?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

We´re still lacking direct verification of gravitational waves, one of the pillars of Relativity.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Gravitational waves are a prediction of general relativity.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Well, after 100 years and thousands of tests, Einsteins theories have held up pretty well.
Actually, they've held up extremely well. There probably isn't another set of theories that have been so extensively tested and verified.

Why shouldn't he get the praise he deserves?

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

The people who idolize Einstein and proclaim the infallibility of his theories have lost sight of the fact after publishing GR, he spent much of his life trying to determine the physical nature of the vacuum. He was absolutely convinced that there existed an all-pervasive dynamical ether with real physical properties, and that his "curved space-time" concept was only a mathematical description of its behavior.

Many people have read Einstein's 1920 Leyden address, and manage to convince themselves that Einstein was using ill-chosen words and concepts and that he did not really require the existence of an ether with physical properties. Fewer people, it seems, have read his 1924 work "On the Ether" which is chapter 1 of Saunder and Brown's compendium "The Philosophy of Vacuum". In this paper, Einstein is far more explicit regarding the need for an ether, and regarding the properties necessary to provide a physical, entirely local mechanism for GR's gravitational, inertial, and centrifugal effects. This chapter is a "must read" for anyone who has been convinced by the revisionists that Einstein's "beta release" of GR was the finished product.

Edited to remove any mention of my model of quantum gravitation per Wolverine's admonition.

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

At least Einstein was not as over-pretentious as his adulators.

Einstein wrote in 1949: "You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced it will stand firm!".

If you will read the 1924 paper in Saunder and Brown's book, you will see that Einstein was quite concerned about just that:

"If we have just dealt with a case where the field theory in its present shape does not appear to be adequate, the facts and ideas that together make up the quantum theory threaten to blow up the edifice of field theory altogether."

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

His reputation doesn't just rest on his relativity theories. He got his Nobel prize for something else - the photoelectric effect.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Gentlemen, this thread is about Einstein. Not your models. As per the FAQ:

13. Alternative Concepts
...
Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

I've informed RussT about this already, here. Be warned. Recurrent instances will be met with disciplinary action for FAQ violation.

Quite right. I have removed the reference and the link to the thead on my model.

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

I know it, and it is irrelevant here. It´s the General Relativity that makes of Einstein a 'genius'. The discovery of Special relativity was inevitable, considering the context of the time.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

It is entirely possible for someone to engage in one of those activities but not the other.

I heartily agree and have been expressing that sentiment for some time. I think that without Einstein it might have taken until about 1960 before a decent version of general relativity was developed. The reason I say 1960 is that after the initial development of GR there was a fairly quiet (not fallow by any means!) period until about 1960 when progress picked up.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

"In a less sophisticated era it would have gone without saying that the mere advent of the technical capability to test important unverified predictions of an accepted physics theory imposed upon physicists an unspoken moral obligation to pull up their socks and do that testing. Nowadays it is a different matter. Funding dictates the morality of science, not to mention its integrity. And now that Einstein has been apotheosized, it has become a breach of faith to doubt His Word by openly suggesting that it be tested" (Thomas Phipps, Infinite Energy 52, 2003).

Does Phipps have a point? Or is it sour grapes? How is Phipps held in informed circles?

You are absolutely correct. I am guilty of the former, but not the latter, hence the "and". I like to read things that he wrote after publishing GRT, because he was not shy about highlighting what he considered weaknesses in the theory. If we're ever going to reconcile quantum physics with GR, who would best elucidate the those weaknesses?

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

There's a lot of that "breach of faith" going around these days. I mean we have Gravity Probe B taking measurements and are in the process of building LIGO in order to (we hope) actually detect gravity waves instead of relying on faith in His Word as revealed to us in the Holy Papers of 1905 through 1917. Fear not, Albert E. has not been beatified, much less canonized. His theories must meet the experimental tests just like everyone else's.

As for Phipps' reputation, a quick Google on Phipps and Infinite Energy brought up a lot of cold fusion hoo-ha. I looked at a paper of his on electromagnetism but the equations are marred by vertically-stretched letters rendering them all but unreadable. It is going to take some work to convince me that he is credible.

Edited to correct an error in terminology. Mea culpa!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

However smart Einstein may have been, he had help with most of his theories. He just decided to take all the credit for himself and show "his ideas" to the president unbenownst to his partners.

__________________

Can you ever reach your future if your past is your present?

Actually, I'd say he was underexalted. All five of his papers from 1905 were of Nobel originality, the explanation of Brownian motion, the papers on the differences between C sub v, and C sub p, SR, and the photoelectric effect. (So, they owe him 4.) In addition, he and Szilard invented things together...the Einstein-Szilard no moving parts refrigerator. Furthermore, when the SS visited his house, and acused him of hiding "weapons"..it didn't take a millisecond for him to realize what clowns they were...and leave Germany the next day. He had both the foresight and the fortitude to back Szilard's letter to Roosevelt for the Manhatten project, yet was amongst the first to recognize the need for nuclear controls.I always liked best the fact that he sailed for years on his lunch hour, heeling his boat over in heavy winds, even though he couldn't swim. It's important not to lose your nerve as you age, not just in your exercise routines, but in your thought trains.
As a classroom instructor, I would go over his stuff briefly when somebody brought it up. Then in chemistry, always put up mc squared=E E=hv...leaving the E's juxtaposed on the board...and move on. Twenty years of juxtaposeds. Most years, not a single student as a junior, would dare to set them equal to each other, and find the DeBroglie equation for matter waves, even though Algebra 1 was long gone. I would almost always have to prod them. Kudos to those that did. You need chutzpah to be a good physicist. Einstein had it. Dare. (I'm Irish, but I see it as a good thing, not an ethnic thing ). Ciao. Pete.

True, but General Relativity, and therefore gravity waves, are a necessary addition: Special Relativity fails badly without the equvalence principle.

When Einstein wrote his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, he predicted that an highly accurate clock at the North or South Pole would tick slower than a clock at the equator. This is Not true, and the wiggle room necessary for explaning this direct contradiction is found in the equivalence principle.

Einstein's original paper on the perturbations of Mercury (submitted and retracted in ~1911) was also wrong, or at least different from the final version of GR published in 1917. There is some disagreement, historically, about whether Einstein knew the 1911 paper likely under-predicted the perturbations. (Even now there the error bars are fairly wide.)

IAOTO Einstein was curve fitting, and that the 1917 version is also incorrect. The rotational curves of galaxies do not meet the expections of either Newtonian or Einsteinian theory, and there is no direct evidence of Dark Matter. So it is not unreasonable to argue both of theses theoretical physicists did the best job they could with the data in hand, but there are second or third order effects that are not being properly addressed by current theories.

Edit: corrected year (1917...)

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

So if all of Einsteins work is considered a theory, then there must be a cause for every prediction.
Eg. in other theories, inertia is arises from interaction with the vacuum.
Where does it come from in relativity?
Does relativity predict sidereal effects?

If there are no causes for every effect in relativity, or it doesnt explain all real world effects, then the people that make all those wonderful comments about Einstein are just showing their ignorance.

It seems that every thing that I read by Einstein shows that he was good scientist, and was willing to admit that his work could be wrong, unlike current science.

Cambridge made him a god.
I dont know why science was hijacked in the name of relativity.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Wolverine;

Sorry, I didn't actually see your warning in the other thread.

Question...Is it okay to invite someone to our thread, without actually saying anything about our theory???

From ATM Section, or
Questions and answers section?

RussT

No. People that are interested will participate unsolicited.

Wolverine
Moderator

Okay...Thanks.

If I am on a thread I created myself...can I invite someone to another thread I have created?

RussT

If relevant to the discussion, yes -- but I must caution you not to do so liberally. We've experienced a great number of attempts at self-promotion from ATM proponents who endeavor to spread their ideas in unrelated discussions, which is rude and cumbersome. That's why the rules are strict in this regard. If in doubt -- just refrain. As noted, people who are interested in discussing your ideas will find you.

Wolverine
Moderator

Thanks...that clears it up.

RussT

Honestly, that sounds like the claims of someone with a persecution complex. He probably has a point about funding, to an extent, but his "breach of faith" comment comes off as definite sour grapes; something you'd read from the majority of ATMers.

Like most all scientists, his work built upon those who came before him, and he had friends with whom he discussed his ideas. (I forget who said he could see farther because he was "standing on the shoulders of giants.") But I sense you're speaking of Mileva, Einstein's mathematician wife. (?)

A week or so ago, a friend of mine was going on about how Einstein's great accomplishments were actually the ideas of Mileva and that he essentially plagiarized her work and didn't give her credit. He must have seen "Einstein's Wife", a documentary on PBS. I sort of doubted the story but didn't really know anything about it, so I couldn't argue. That is, until I later located this website that pretty much destroys that myth. Please note this is not to take anything away from Mileva herself. She had to be a remarkable woman to attain the educational heights that she did back in the early 1900s when men totally dominated science and mathematics. Of course, this domination is not due to any "inherent" superiority in these fields -- it's simply a matter of control, and the desire to keep it. Sadly, we have not really come that far from such backward and antiproductive thinking in the past 100 years.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Oh, yes. Newton, of course: "If I have seen further, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.