The Corruption of Science by Modern Philosophy

Thick as two Plancks huh!
Jerry Russell said:
As of today, the article includes this statement: "The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_symmetry
Lorentz symmetry." There's been no recent edit warring about this, and the talk page makes it clear that the consensus of editors agree with you. So I'm mystified why you're complaining about this article.
Thank you for putting it there if you did, Jerry. Lorentz symmetry is mere theoretical baloney, just like the Planck length.
Jerry Russell said:
On the other hand, it's obvious that a significant amount of thought is going into the search for the physical meaning, if any, of this constant. The article is drawn from 16 peer reviewed sources written by esteemed physicists. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia article, perhaps you have a problem with those esteemed physicists as well?
The theoretical (mathematical) physicist concocted this mathematical BS, now they try to give it a physical meaning. This is the reason the talk page allows latitude on the subject - because it is a secondary issue. The primary issue is the BS of Relativity Theory itself, because it leads to logical paradoxes when applied physically.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
At number 4, not number 5 as I expected!
At number 4. Time dilation is experimentally demonstrated by disparities in time indicated by moving clocks vs. stationary clocks.
As I hold to Galilean Relativity (because it does NOT lead to fatal logical paradoxes) - that all motion is relative - there are no such things as stationary and moving clocks. The definition of stationary and moving is merely relative.

Time dilation is NOT a fact but a misinterpretation of evidence (the Hafele-Keating Clock Experiment). Hence the negative MMX does not demonstrate LC.
Jerry said:
Given the fact of time dilation, MMX is an experimental demonstration of length contraction. Important aspects of modern electromagnetic theory would fall apart without SR as a basis.
Boltzmann, Maxwell and Faraday worked with electromagnetism without theory falling apart. SR explains nothing but parasitizes the Doppler Effect, claiming to be the explanation for the Doppler Effect and GPS systems etc. without the correct nature of light being understood.

In order to broach the Hafele-Keating Clock Experiment I have to remind you of Newton's bucket experiment where a rotating bucket full of water leads to the water forming a paraboloid shape as it climbs up the sides - due to what we now call centrifugal force.

Newton explained the effect as absolute rotation, rotation relative to space.

The correct answer was not appreciated until Ernst Mach replied, invoking Galileo, that the spinning bucket is not rotating relative to space (i.e. absolute rotation) but rotating relative to the fixed stars, to the observable cosmos, NOT the whole universe which, to the contrary, does NOT provide an absolute reference frame for rotary motion.

Centrifugal force is that force opposing gravity (which instead is centripetal, pulling things in). Planets stay in the sky because centrifugal force and gravity are in balance - and these account for why we have two tides a day rather than one.

Centrifugal force acts on objects too, including clocks. We'll next see how this physical effects on clocks alters their rate - and has nothing to do with either special or general relativity or time dilation, despite what Junkipedia says!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Einstein teaches that the universe is finite - the curvature of spacetime means that universe curves back on itself.
If this is the case, then Fraser Cain at "Universe Today" (Space and Astronomy News) hasn't heard the news.

https://www.universetoday.com/119553/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/

Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?
Haven’t astronomers tried to figure this out? Of course they have, you fragile mortal meat man/woman! They’ve obsessed over it, and ordered up some of the most powerful sensitive space satellites ever built to answer this question.Astronomers have looked deep at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the afterglow of the Big Bang. So, how would you test this idea just by watching the sky?
Here’s how smart they are. They’ve searched for evidence that features on one side of the sky are connected to features on the other side of the sky, sort of like how the sides of a Risk map connect to each other, or there’s wraparound on the PacMan board. And so far, there’s no evidence they’re connected.
In our hu-man words, this means 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the Universe doesn’t repeat. Light has been travelling towards us for 13.8 billion years this way, and 13.8 billion years that way, and 13.8 billion years that way; and that’s just when the light left those regions. The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across. That’s an “at least” figure. It could be 100 billion light-years, or it could be a trillion light-years. We don’t know. Possibly, we can’t know. And it just might be infinite.
And, FWIW, neither have the editors at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Infinite_or_finite

One of the presently unanswered questions about the universe is whether it is infinite or finite in extent.
Unsourced! Original Research!! The Wiki Deity is outraged!!! Claude, can we fix this? Where's a peer reviewed paper that states that the universe is finite? (Actually, to make an authoritative statement in "Wiki voice" you would need to find a peer reviewed paper stating that there is a scientific consensus that Einstein's theory of general relativity says the universe is finite.)

And you really have to ask me why religion resurged in the 20th century???????
I'm not sure that's true either. It was resurgent in the US, but faded in Europe, and I'm not sure what the global net change was. And whatever happened, I don't believe that Special Relativity had much to do with it.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
At number 4, not number 5 as I expected!
I didn't agree with number 5 either, so don't get too excited.

Boltzmann, Maxwell and Faraday worked with electromagnetism without theory falling apart.
True, but I said "modern electromagnetic theory", which includes doppler effect, GPS, etc. Did you mention doppler effect, GPS etc? You make this easy, I hardly have to figure anything out for myself.

The correct answer was not appreciated until Ernst Mach replied, invoking Galileo, that the spinning bucket is not rotating relative to space (i.e. absolute rotation) but rotating relative to the fixed stars, to the observable cosmos,
He also mentioned the mass of the Earth, invoking gravity as the primary cause of the observed effect.

We'll next see how this physical effects on clocks alters their rate
In other words, you are continuing the conversation for another day, without having said anything to demonstrate your extraordinary claims. Tiny bites indeed.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
And you really have to ask me why religion resurged in the 20th century???????
Wow!!! Yes, I guess we have to ask you. Because as far as I knew, at least in the USA, the reason is because too many sheepish people, who don't spend a femtosecond pondering the curvature of space, became too neurotically anxious trying to deal with the chaotic contemporary modern world. They want the fake surety of a fake god that tells them that they will be rewarded or punished, much like Santa Claus did when they were kittens.
 
When I write plainly that "Einstein teaches that the universe is finite", Jerry raises Cain over the issue!;)
Jerry Russell playing Basil Fawlty said:
If this is the case, then Fraser Cain at "Universe Today" (Space and Astronomy News) hasn't heard the news.

And, FWIW, neither have the editors at Wikipedia [Claude: you mean Junkipedia whose role is to mirror and serve the popular prejudice]:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Infinite_or_finite

One of the presently unanswered questions about the universe is whether it is infinite or finite in extent.
To my criticism of Einstein he replies hysterically.
Jerry Russell playing Basil Fawlty said:
Unsourced! Original Research!! The Wiki Deity is outraged!!! Claude, can we fix this? Where's a peer reviewed paper that states that the universe is finite?
And you wonder why religion is back???
Jerry Russell more calmly playing Basil said:
I'm not sure that's true either. It was resurgent in the US, but faded in Europe, and I'm not sure what the global net change was. And whatever happened, I don't believe that Special Relativity had much to do with it.
When modern scientists (i.e. those who believe Einstein's BS) claim the universe to be infinite, what they really mean is that there are an infinite series of parallel-&-daughter universes that are NOT physical entities but speculative mathematical ones. Hence the 'infinity' of the universe is cobbled together using these mathematical speculations.

So where's the peer reviewed paper you asked for, Bas...? Here it is from the Guru himself (note that Euclidean means straight-lines rather than Einstein's curved spacetime):
Einstein Relativity chapter 32 said:
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will necessarily be finite.
So what's it like being a "quasi-Einsteinian" Jerry? Preaching a finite universe to the people while the masses are struggling for infinite meaning - the financial Masonic elites, laughing, reach for mathematics and the mob for Jesus, Allah, Jim Jones or whatever kooks come along?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
And do you really have to ask me why religion resurged in the 20th century????
Wow!!! Yes, I guess we have to ask you. Because as far as I knew, at least in the USA, the reason is because too many sheepish people, who don't spend a femtosecond pondering the curvature of space, became too neurotically anxious trying to deal with the chaotic contemporary modern world. They want the fake surety of a fake god that tells them that they will be rewarded or punished, much like Santa Claus did when they were kittens.
That's right, the masses wanted reassurance, even in a fake god. But even the financial elites needed reassurance in an increasingly atheistic age, hence Einstein came along to help them with an ideology that would lead to complete passivity and befuddlement, especially for the semi-educated middle class who also had to be controlled. (You will no doubt remember the middle class predominance among Hitler's supporters).

The book you need to read is Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, the best book ever written in the 20th century. There he shows how general relativity is trumped up nonsense while also showing how a proper physical understanding had been pushed aside by the Catholic Church long ago - in ancient times and not merely the Church's attack on Galileo. Lerner too has been associated with the LaRouche groups, as has Joe, both of them benefitting from LaRouche's research. I dunno if the two have met but they sure need a good dose of each other!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: My parents never fooled me with Santa Claus as a child, despite my Anglican background. I remember a Jewish boy in primary school - the only one there - who did not believe in Santa either, likewise a boy of Czech descent. All the others did however so I wonder if Miss Kitten ever did?
 
Last edited:
Clearly you haven't grasped the connection between the Lorentz Equations (LEs) and their origin in Woldemar Voigt's research...
Jerry Russell said:
True, but I said "modern electromagnetic theory", which includes doppler effect, GPS, etc. Did you mention doppler effect, GPS etc? You make this easy, I hardly have to figure anything out for myself.
...on the Doppler Effect.* So go figure it out!:cool:

Ernst Mach often wrote ambiguously so I accept your phrase here...
Jerry Russell said:
He also mentioned the mass of the Earth, invoking gravity as the primary cause of the observed effect.
...but have corrected his error. Centrifugal and accelerational forces on Earth are NOT due to the Earth's mass or gravity. They have the same strength on the Moon, as the astronauts found when they overturned the lunar rover (350kg or more on Earth) and had to right it once more. The gravitational pull was less but centrifugal forces the same as upon Earth.
Jerry Russell said:
In other words, you are continuing the conversation for another day, without having said anything to demonstrate your extraordinary claims. Tiny bites indeed.
You'll keep!

Yours faithfully
Claude

* Even Einstein's official biographer Abraham Pais in Subtle is the Lord admits this on pages 121-122, but suitably disguised in dense mathematics of course.
 
Last edited:
ARE TRAVELING ATOMIC CLOCKS PROOF OF RELATIVITY’S TIME DILATION?

The Hafele-Keating clocks experiment relied upon very accurate atomic clocks carried east and west in commercial jet aircraft. The reproducible difference in times shown by the clocks has been misinterpreted as proof of Einstein’s time dilation (TD), involving both special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). The claim is false since the cause of the phenomenon is a reproducible mechanical effect on clock mechanisms, including atomic clocks.

When Einstein wrote his BS, atomic clocks had not yet been invented, hence Einstein could get away with the most egregious claims.

According to Einstein mere motion causes time dilation (TD), but if there are inertial forces also involved (gravitation, acceleration, centrifugal force) then any change in clock function is attributed to general relativity (GR).

In GR, being subject to a gravitational force implies more time dilation due to said force, a slowing of time under greater gravitational forces (under this crack-brained logic) logically culminating in a Black Hole where time stops altogether! Now on the earth’s surface itself, the gravitational pull at the equator is rather less than at the poles – the earth being slightly oblate (fat at the equator) due to this effect. In the case of Jupiter which rotates much faster than our planet, this oblateness is obvious even in a telescope.

Hence, as can be demonstrated experimentally, an atomic clock ticks rather faster at the equator than at the poles – though the effect is microscopic. Einsteinians of course claim this as proof for SR & GR; hence if you believe those theories then time passes faster at the equator than at the poles, denying Newtonian time which flows evenly throughout the universe no matter one's state of motion.

However, the claim of SR &/or GR influencing the clock rate in this way is false since in Einstein’s day there were pendulum clocks primarily – and a pendulum clock ticks FASTER the stronger the force of gravity, exactly the opposite to Einstein’s claims. E.g. a grandfather clock on the Moon will tick more slowly than upon Earth – and a grandfather clock floating in a Space Station will not tick at all. Nevertheless, this hardly means that time has stopped if there is zero gravity to drive a pendulum!

Einstein tried to avoid the crass pendulum issue by referring to such clocks as “balance clocks” but see:

https://www.mpoweruk.com/timekeepers.htm

where a balance (such as an escapement wheel) is necessary to quantify the time from the pendulum swing, creating the tick-tock sound.

Conversely, when atomic clocks were discovered, Einsteinians claimed a magical effect for the very accurate device, asserting that any change in its rate would be due to the alleged time dilation effects of Einstein’s relativity. This is because atomic clocks behave in the opposite way to pendulum clocks - slowing down when the forces applied to them are greater!

Hence the Hafele-Keating clock experiment. With accurate atomic clocks kept as control clocks on the Earth’s surface, other atomic clocks were flown about the Earth’s surface on commercial jet aircraft. Some clocks travelled mainly north and south, others east and west.

On the atomic clocks that travelled north and south, the clock rate sped up. The reason for this is the lower gravity in the aircraft in flight – atomic clocks speeding up in lower gravity conditions.

This effect was also true for the east and west traveling clocks – but traveling west and traveling east had opposite effects on the atomic clocks. Those traveling west had the fastest clock rates of all, but those traveling east were slowed down relative to atomic clocks traveling north-south! None of these very reproducible changes has anything to do with Einstein’s relativity however.

When an aeroplane with its clock travels west, it is opposing the earth’s rotation and hence the inertial force acting between the earth’s rotation and the cosmos (the finite realm of the fixed stars). The overall inertial force is reduced hence the clock speeds up. For eastward travelling clocks the eastward motion adds to the earth’s rotation, increasing the inertial force relative to the cosmos, hence the eastbound clock slows down in rate. Note that the inertial force between earth and cosmos is also a major and climate driving force; it accounts for the Westward Drift in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (and less consistently in the Indian Ocean), its effect being to create the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio respectively by piling up the seawater at the western side of the ocean (as we also see with the Suez Canal which flows from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean, or are you going to tell me that's due to Einstein's Relativity too!).

At the same time however the motion between an object and the cosmos is NOT explained theoretically in the same way as Newton explained his spinning bucket. Newton claimed his bucket of water was rotating relative to the universe as a whole i.e. absolute motion in the form of absolute rotatory motion. Rather, as Mach said (albeit inconsistently), following Galileo’s “all motion is relative”, the cosmos is only a finite object relatively at rest in the infinite universe, hence earth and cosmos undergo relative motion only since the universe itself is not a static reference frame for rotatory motion either.

Hence the Hafele-Keating clocks demonstrate only relative Galilean motion, modified by inertial forces. The Einstein relativity-based ‘explanation’ is a series of false deductions and explanations based upon a bogus theory which leads to logical paradoxes when applied physically. So what is in dispute is not the experimental results but the theory imposed to explain them.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So where's the peer reviewed paper you asked for, Bas...? Here it is from the Guru himself (note that Euclidean means straight-lines rather than Einstein's curved spacetime):
This would not be up to Wikipedia standards, because (1) it's too old; Wikipedia editors don't trust any scientific papers much over 50 years old, and less than 20 years old is better; (2) it's not really a peer reviewed journal; and (3) quoted out of context. I was able to read the entire chapter, since it's short and easy reading. Einstein doesn't claim to know whether the universe is flat ("quasi-Euclidean") or whether it is curved and finite, although he does find the latter situation more esthetically appealing.

If one were to quote this material (correctly) in Wikipedia, it could be used to demonstrate what Einstein was thinking in 1920. It would be useless to support a claim such as "according to General Relativity, the universe is finite"...

It has since been recognized that Einstein's reasoning on this point was mistaken: see

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/einsteins-argument-for-a-finite-universe.789325/

we know there is a solution (the critical density FRW solution) to the Einstein Field Equations in which space is quasi-Euclidean (overall zero spatial curvature on average), but in which the average density of matter is positive.

Preaching a finite universe to the people while the masses are struggling for infinite meaning - the financial Masonic elites, laughing, reach for mathematics and the mob for Jesus, Allah, Jim Jones or whatever kooks come along?
The mob doesn't care whether the universe is infinite, or whether it's a mere 93 billion light-years from end to end. And if the mob did care, the elites would have agents working both sides of the question, exciting as much strife as possible, to divert attention from themselves.

The book you need to read is Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, the best book ever written in the 20th century. There he shows how general relativity is trumped up nonsense
I don't take a position on the Big Bang: the physics involved are way above my pay grade. But, I did buy myself a copy of Lerner's book this morning. Strange, Lerner doesn't reject either special or general relativity. On the contrary, he says:

General relativity, we now know by observation, is almost unquestionably an accurate theory of gravitation. (Kindle Locations 2012-2013).​

Lerner describes Einstein's theory as follows:

Einstein used his general theory of relativity to prove that space would be finite. Simply put, the larger a mass of a given density is, the more it curves space. If it is big enough it will curve space entirely around onto itself. So if the universe is homogeneous, with the same density everywhere, it must be finite.... Einstein knew that observation indicates the universe at all scales was inhomogeneous. Yet purely for philosophical and aesthetic reasons he proposed a homogeneous cosmos, thus laying the basis for a revival of a finite universe. But for an inhomogeneous universe, when the density of a large section of space is less than that for smaller regions, the universe need not be closed over into a sphere. (Kindle Locations 2054-2063).​

Which is a little different from what Einstein said in 1920, but perhaps Lerner is quoting some later work of Einstein's. At any rate, the conclusion is the same: General Relativity is consistent with either a finite or infinite universe. Lerner takes issue with other finding of modern cosmology, but not this.

When an aeroplane with its clock travels west, it is opposing the earth’s rotation and hence the inertial force acting between the earth’s rotation and the cosmos (the finite realm of the fixed stars). The overall inertial force is reduced hence the clock speeds up.
I question whether there are such things as "fixed stars" (in the sense of being actually motionless, although they might appear such when observed in the sky over short periods of time), or whether such stars exist in a finite realm, or whether this 'cosmos' exerts inertial forces which can effect the speed of a clock.

Note that the inertial force between earth and cosmos is also a major and climate driving force; it accounts for the Westward Drift in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (and less consistently in the Indian Ocean), its effect being to create the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio respectively by piling up the seawater at the western side of the ocean (as we also see with the Suez Canal which flows from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean, or are you going to tell me that's due to Einstein's Relativity too!).
Wikipedia says this is caused by the Coriolis effect, which is a Newtonian phenomenon. So that's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until convinced otherwise.

So what is in dispute is not the experimental results but the theory imposed to explain them.
Does your alternate theory have something to do with the inertial forces of the cosmos? At any rate, I'm glad that you don't dispute well-established experimental results.

I'm willing to attempt to defend Special Relativity, or try to understand your alternative theory, though I'm sure you could find someone better qualified to serve as a debating foil. Evaluating alternative theoretical formulations for general relativity is beyond my capabilities. I only have a mere BA in physics, and I've never studied general relativity, nor do I claim to understand it. I studied quantum mechanics briefly in engineering school, but at a workman's level rather than a theoretical level. That's why I can't evaluate Paul Violetta's work, but only mention in passing that it exists.
 
Last edited:
Top