Has physics taken a wrong turn with relativity?

Question

There is no man that greatly understood electricity and electromagnetism better than Nikola Tesla did. In his own words, he states (about Einstein's work) that it is a "magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists..."

he further continues:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

You guys are forgetting the pioneer anomaly. You guys are also forgetting singularities, which everything in our logical mind tells us that is not possible. You are forgetting that the reason why quantum mechanics is unable to explain gravitation is because realtivity itself is WRONG. I suggest a great site: www.aethertheory.co.uk

in response to inquisitive:

The precession of Mercury certainly could not be explained by just relativity. In fact, the interesting thing is, that observations in our universe have been explained by alternate theories simpler than GR. Its just that these "mainstream" physicists won't let go of their beloved relativity.

What I am saying, is that there must be one single theory, that does not break down on any condition, that explains the universe and especially gravitation. And the search for that theory has been impaired due to the adoptation of GR for a theory of the universe on a large scale.. due to its faults. Superstring theory is non sense. It will simply never be proved. This shows how mathematics can dangerously skew our pursuit of truth and reality.

I thank you all for your input..

Answer 1

Thats BS!!!!!

Answer 2

As sfar as us little humans we are not reallly concerned about which turn did relativity take.
From the practical application very few people find any use about a system moving at the speed of light.We live on this globe at non relativistic speeds.And we do not move at the speed of light.
All our machinery and systems, exept radio transmission ,dont move at the speed of light. Gravity? Newtonian physics is used.
The people that really changed the modern world were Herz , Marconi and most of all Tesla .Without marconi=no radio or television.Without Herz marconi would not have figured it out.Without Tesla no induction motor and no alternating current which supplies lighting and power for the world's industry.
Theory is theory but practicality is where the cooky crumbles.

As far as atomic bombs we could have done without them.

As far as Gravity is concerned Einstein never explained any mechanisms.And General Relativity does not explain the magnetic field., as there is no field equation for magnetism.Also Relativity was not analysed in terms of taking Iinto account TEMPERATURE. And a field only indicate the inverse distance of interaction but not the interaction itself=it only a mathematical construct.
There has been so far no proof about the speed of light in outer space except in local space.
The precession of mercuryby Einstein. was done Using both Newton theory and Relativity. So it was not just one theory only. However ;that calculation was previously done by Paul Gerber in 1875? obtaining the same results without the use of relativity.

Curvature of Space? It was assumed that the aether did not exist. So presumably we live in a vaccum which they call space.
Hence if space is nothing then nothing curves? This the whole logic being taught in our schools.
The contrasting Theory of dr. Ricardo Carezani of Auto Dynamics(which is repalcing Einstein's theory)
did offer explanation why there is a Pioner Anomaly.

The other person who changed the Modern world was not a physist but he discovered the reason for most infectuous diseases =Louis Pasteur.
And of course Lavoisier the father of Chemistry.

Inquisitivecahos
All theory is debatable =the question is which ever thinks its right can be very wrong(especially when they are viewed in terms of misinterpreted experiments).

All ideas about discovery the mysteries of the Universe are usefull even contrasting theories .

Opening of the Mind is where the cooky crumbles.

Answer 3

Tesla assumed space has no properties. Well, even a region of spacetime containing purest vacuum has properties: length, width, height, and the time interval that it remains evacuated. His unwillingness to believe that it could have more complicated properties was the result of his faith that space should be simple. His analogy to God is a dead given away that faith (the belief in things unseen) was his basis. Brilliant minds in particular can succumb such a longing for coherent simplicity. The search for this is, after all, the ultimate goal physics. Ptolemy through Copernicus assumed that the gods or God would find it most suitable that celestial bodies follow uniform circular motion. Einstein insisted that "God does not play dice" in criticizing quantum mechanics. These, like Tesla, were brilliant men. Their search for an underlying simplicity to the universe just got sidetracked when they let faith corrupt their thoughts. Observation through experimentation (things seen) is the ultimate test of a theory, not faith.

Answer 4

Tesla was a genius, but he was also wrong about relativity.

How do i know?

Because relativity can be, and has been, proven observationally. You can certainly question the interpretations of its mathematical constructs, but one thing is for certain: the predictions it makes are dead on.

Seriously: both special and general relativity have been proven experimentally. No amount of incredulity on your part or anyone else's can change that.

" You guys are also forgetting singularities, which everything in our logical mind tells us that is not possible"

You cannot rely on common sense when dealing with modern physics. Read a bit about quantum mechanics, and you'll quickly learn why this is so.

"You are forgetting that the reason why quantum mechanics is unable to explain gravitation is because realtivity itself is WRONG."

Quantum mechanics hasn't explained gravity because it has been unable to quantize the gravitational field.
There is one theory, which is quantum mechanical in nature, which can and does quantize the gravitational field: string theory. This theory is, however, completely unproven, and is therefore not accepted as a true description of the universe.

"www.aethertheory.co.uk"

That website is what we call "crackpot" science. Whoever made it is an idiot.

Answer 5

Hey Intelsat

There was a famous experiment to check whether space was curved by gravity: http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

Under this experiment, the light from a star was forced to curve because it moved through our sun's gravitational field.

After this experiment, almost everybody agreed that Einstein was correct about relativity. Since then, relativity has been verified many times with additional experiments.

----- --------- ---------
Part Two (in response to your additional details)
Here's a nice definition of circular logic:
1) Relativity is wrong
2) Therefore quantum physics is wrong
3) Therefore relativity is wrong
Basically this is what you have said above.

The Pioneer phenomenon does not disprove general relativity; it is merely an unexplained phenomenon. It could be explained by a number of things which we simply have not observed.

Singularities make a lot of sense to *me*; if *you* think they violate some law of logic, then you need to state which law is violated.

Since you have claimed that that precession of Mercury cannot be explained by relativity, you must provide some evidence to support your claim. Simply because this is inconvenient for you is not sufficient.

Likewise, if you hold that string theory is "nonsense", then you must provide a reason why this might be so. Perhaps you don't like it because it is too hard for you to understand. At any rate, I don't know of any physicists who have, to date, tried to claim that string theory is a fact yet.

Finally, if you know of any math which has skewed our search for truth and reality, please say what it is. Again, simply because you dislike or don't understand something doesn't mean you can claim it is invalid.

Answer 6

Except that relativity has been tested through real-world observations. Light bends as it passes large objects. Einstein's equations must be used if you want (for example) your Mars probe to arrive in the right place and time to enter orbit. Tesla was just cranky that a new world was coming around.

I take exception with the phrase "everything in our logical mind ... not possible." Einstein used thought experiments that were the epitome of logical reasoning. Sure these wild things like singularities and space bending seem to conflict with our everyday senses, but then we are not creatures that live at the edge of the speed of light. If science cannot follow the mathematics and logic to whatever end (however wild), then what is the point? We need these theories to make the world work for us, unless you want to go back to the Steam Age. Bessemer steel rules, man!

Answer 7

Is relativity wrong? Yes, we know that. As you say relativity does not mesh with Q.M. But relativity is wrong in the same way that Newton was wrong. It works for a lot of situations, but not all. And these situations where it fails will hopefully reveal a new and better theory in time. This process is known as science.

But what you’re trying to do with your arguments and what R.F Norgan does with his website, is to try to disprove and discredit a highly mathematical science with words alone. Sure he gives some equations and explains what he thinks they mean. But where are the derivations of these equations from the simple principles that he is arguing are the correct ones? Where are the experimental results that support his claims?

It is easy to attack relativity especially general relativity because the math and the equations are so complex that the laymen won't understand them or their derivation. So in explaining relativity to the populace you have to do use qualitative examples. For instance you can talk about space curvature, rest mass energy, space time, etc. But in that explanation no ever tells you that the equation that explains space curvature could also imply that instead of curving space mass produces a gauge field. So even if the argument that space can’t be curved is correct, it doesn't disprove the theory but it just disproves one way of understanding an equation derived from that theory.

My main point is that to attack a quantitative theory you have to use quantitative means not qualitative opinions.

Answer 8

Sorry. I groove on the iconoclast that was Tesla. Yeah, alternating current was his baby, and a bunch of other interesting electromechanical innovations, some of which will undoubtedly someday bear fruit.

But Tesla also took money from J.P.Morgan to build a transmitter to signal the Martians who he swore had communicated to him through lightning bolts.

Genius. But nut.

Einstein's contribution, while not the last word (no theoretician can conceivably have this distinction or science will have come to an end)
was a valuable step in the progress of our understanding of the universe.

Despite some rhetoric I've heard among those who do not actually understand the implications of his theories, Einstein holds his place in the spectrum of great thinkers. And his predictions hold generally true and useful.

Answer 9

to commence the failings: there is the particular concept and then there is the overall concept of Relativity. The later bargains with accelerating reference frames, which we do not want. The particular concept of Relativity quite states that once there is no acceleration (e.g. a effective practice vacation between stations) the regulations of physics behave independently of the position you're. as a way to infer that if you're transferring the speed of sunshine continues to be an similar to someone who isn't. the purely way this can ensue is that if time adjustments. (the first question is why? the purely answer is: nicely that's the way the universe works and each and each and every time we do an attempt it shows that Einstein is nice, and our straight forward sense if incorrect.) With this straightforward truth: the speed of sunshine is consistent for all observers (transferring with consistent speed), we may be able to deduce that mass is only a kind of means. once you've a large kind of mass, you've a large kind of means; once you've a touch mass, you've a touch means. that means that mass and means are proportional to at least one yet another, m ~ E. The consistent between the relationship is in basic terms the speed of sunshine squared, so we get E = mc^2. (again why? nicely that's in basic terms the way the universe works). in view that c^2 is fairly a huge range we see that even minute quantities of count number carry (or require) huge quantities of means.

Answer 10

Yeah, I think that those who think about such things have similar problems about relativity. There is no doubt that a photon will 'curve' around the sun, which may prove that the photon has mass. That doesn't prove that a straight line, which has no mass, will curve around the sun. Indeed, if it did, then the photon would not 'curve', but follow the 'straight line'. So in order for the 'curve' of the photon to be observed, it must be that the 'space' is NOT curved. I have the same problem with the popular 'rubber sheet' analogy used to 'explain' gravity, the one which shows an indentation in a plane, pointing down to illustrate the 'curvature' of space. Does it work the same if the indentation points up? east or right? west or left? If it is indented in all directions, does it really illustrate anything?

Answer 11

Get revenge. Learn enough about Tesla and his work, and enough about classical electromagnetism (Maxwell's Equations and all their implications) and relativity that you yourself can put them in perspective and see if the conflicts can be resolved. Then, if you find areas where Tesla was on-track and others are wrong, you can clearly and eloquently express your view, and dialog with the scientific community until you see your view prevail, or see why it shouldn't.

To say that God has attributes but not properties is semantic quibbling. To say that God's attributes are of our own making is the ultimate in arrogance.

Calling space-time curved in the presence of mass is just a convenient description that seems to work. Come up with a better one, and the scientific community will evaluate it and adopt it. I don't think many are comfortable with the notion of warped space-time, but they have nothing to offer in its place.