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:
Don't feel bad, Jerry. Eric Lerner too has a BA in physics and I have no graduate degree in physics at all since I trained in medicine.
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.
Exactly the point! The dispute is essentially with the theoretical explanation for genuine experimental results. Einstein's relativity-based explanations are all completely and utterly wrong - though he can get the right answer on issues when he leaves relativity aside e.g. his quantum explanation for the photoelectric effect which got him the 1919 Nobel Prize. But why are Einstein's relativity-based explanations bogus? Because they lead to logical paradoxes when applied to actual physical situations.
Jerry Russell said:
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.
Luckily we don't have to debate general relativity (GR) since it is dependent on SR for its supposed explanations of physical phenomena - notably the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury.

I.e. what is needed is to demonstrate to you that special relativity (SR) is not genuine science at all.

You had mentioned in a Postflaviana essay that mankind needs to push the Reset Button on the elite-Freemason-financier control over the world - and you also admitted that the Reset Button had not yet been found. I.e.:
[URL='https://postflaviana.org/cultural-degradation/']Racism said:
...what if we could hit the reset button on Western Culture, reboot to the desired optimal culture parameters, and then the problem disappears from the Matrix? Could a universally delightful and secular (a)pocalypse be as simple and peaceful as that, as juxtaposed to the prior Final Solution?

Here at Postflaviana, we are humbly trying to find that reset button via our (r)evelations
My point is: exposing Einstein (supposedly the world's greatest scientist - and Jewish and Zionist into the bargain) is the Reset Button since exposing his perverted way of thinking as exhibited in his Relativity Theories rebounds onto all science reestablishing genuine objectivity as against the consensus of peer-reviewed stupidity and bigotry which is the core of modern science and modern thought generally! o_O

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: And am I to find a meow of agreement from anyone?
 
Last edited:
I never said that Lerner rejected special relativity (SR) - which is his major defect.
Jerry Russell said:
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).​
He made this statement in order to deflect the hostility he would have to expect from Einsteinians. Rather, his approach to general relativity (GR) was to sideline it as irrelevant. E.g. in the very same paragraph he writes.
Lerner BBNH p. 127 said:
The distorted triumph of general relativity has also contributed to the revival of purely deductive methods of Descartes and Plato.
Hannes Alfvén, Lerner's Nobel-Prizewinning mentor, pointed out on the same page that Relativity's triumph was...

Lerner BBNH p. 127 said:
...quite ironic in that [it] led to the resurgence of myth. The most unfortunately effect of the Einstein myth is the enshrinement of the belief, rejected for four hundred years, that science is incomprehensible [meaning: above your pay grade, Jerry... etc.] that only an initiated priesthood can fathom its mysteries. … "Soon the best-sellers among the popular science books became those that presented scientific results as insults to common sense. One of the consequences was that the limit between science and pseudo-science began to be erased."
An initiated priesthood huh! - Freemasons for example?????
Rather, Lerner's intention is to sideline GR into irrelevance.
Lerner BBNH p. 222 said:
De Vaucouleurs' discovery shows that nowhere in the universe - except perhaps near a few ultradense neutron stars - is general relativity more than a subtle correction.
Hence the quote from Lerner you give below merely demonstrates that Einstein taught a finite universe...
Jerry Russell said:
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.
...but that attempts to avoid the finite universe conclusion lead nowhere since one has to invoke parallel and daughter universes to try to re-establish an infinite "universe". A universe comprising one electron would be larger than our own, according to Einstein's GR, because its lesser gravity would curve the universe less than our universe does. GR has either to be accepted completely or rejected completely!
Jerry Russell said:
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.
Hence your conclusion above is fundamentally untrue. Lerner teaches that the universe is infinite in matter, space and time. His mentor, Hannes Alfven followed the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmological Model whereby increasing volumes of space contain less and less matter and so on ad infinitum in the infinite universe. Lerner is trying to avoid and downplay GR, because GR is fundamentally fatal to Lerner's infinite universe.

Note that Newton's Universe was infinite only spatially - an empty gesture since according to Newtonian thinking the amount of matter in the universe is finite, hence space travel would be reduced to a meaningless gesture to avoid the Earth's and Sun's decay, turning the masses back to religious conceptions instead. This fits with Newton's Arian religious views too, as, unlike Galileo, Newton was a religious crank - as bad as any ever kindled in Kooksville (I have in mind here the Rajneeshis and Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God and the chosen home of that lunatic Australian creationist mathematician Barry Setterfield who claimed that the speed of light was infinite at the world's creation 6,000 years ago, gradually settling down to speed c today) a city whose only claim to fame is its excellent running shoes!

The term "fixed stars" is just an expression for the cosmos, the pattern of stars and galaxies that we see at night - but which does constitute a reference frame for motion when we consider inertial effects - including centrifugal force.
Jerry Russell said:
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.
You are right that the stars and the cosmos are not motionless, they do not constitute an absolute universal rest relative to which individual objects move. However when a clock is subject to inertial forces (and gravitational ones) its rate does change! Clearly you have NOT thought about the origin of inertia!;)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The dispute is essentially with the theoretical explanation for genuine experimental results.
So your replacement theory should be able to explain everything that Special Relativity does, while resolving contradictions (if indeed there are any.)

But more importantly, if it's really a different theory, it should make some predictions that SR doesn't.

So: My challenge is -- Tell me something I don't already know...

exposing Einstein (supposedly the world's greatest scientist - and Jewish and Zionist into the bargain) is the Reset Button
I've been increasingly doubtful, whether there really is any possibility of a 'Reset Button'. Not that the religious & cultural conflicts of the three Abrahamic religions aren't a big problem.

But, the very concept of Industrial Civilization, whether motivated by Capitalist or Socialist ideologies or something in between, may be fundamentally flawed. Any type of extractive industry might be unsustainable and hopelessly in conflict with the natural world. Furthermore, Industrial Civilization requires hierarchy for its basic functioning, and hierarchical power concentration seems to be always growing out of control. And, humanity is biologically designed and evolved to prefer growth whenever possible, but infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.

So even if we had a cultural "Reset Button" to put an end to the Flavian insanity, I'm not sure that would be enough to solve the human predicament. We may be headed to extinction because of bigger problems.

Having said all that: "Exposing Einstein" sounds like a red herring to me. The fact that you even mention his ethnic background, leads me to expect that this is just more White Anti-Semitic Priggish bigotry.

one has to invoke parallel and daughter universes to try to re-establish an infinite "universe".
Fraser Cain mentioned this issue in his post linked above. Within each finite zone of the universe, there is a finite and countable number of states of matter that can exist within it. So if the universe itself is infinite, then each finite zone within it must exist in multiple copies, that is, "parallel universes". This seems like straightforward logic to me, based on well known principles of thermodynamics.

At any rate, whether it's right or wrong, it has nothing to do with general relativity. Even I can understand it :)

GR has either to be accepted completely or rejected completely!
I don't agree. The theory of GR was discovered by Einstein, but that doesn't mean he owns it. It has been fine-tuned by other scientists. At this point, there seems to be a consensus that GR is compatible with either a finite universe, or an infinite one.

Why are we even talking about GR? I don't claim to understand the first thing about it. And that's not because I think it's "incomprehensible", I just haven't put in the time & effort necessary to join the 'illuminated' ones on this particular topic.

I do know a little about SR, and I thought that's what we were going to be discussing?
 
Last edited:
GR has either to be accepted completely or rejected completely!
Jerry Russell said:
I don't agree. The theory of GR was discovered by Einstein, but that doesn't mean he owns it. It has been fine-tuned by other scientists. At this point, there seems to be a consensus that GR is compatible with either a finite universe, or an infinite one.
While there is an obvious consensus that GR is correct, my point is that GR has either to be accepted or rejected. This is because GR teaches that space (or spacetime) is curved, and if so, even in the tiniest way, it means that the universe is finite - and so the modern physicists use it in their equations, GIGO being guaranteed in advance.

Hence you rightly state:
Jerry Russell said:
Within each finite zone of the universe, there is a finite and countable number of states of matter that can exist within it. So if the universe itself is infinite, then each finite zone within it must exist in multiple copies, that is, "parallel universes".
I.e. what you call an "infinite universe" actually consists of mere repetitions - like Andy Warhol's bland painting of Campbell Soul cans side by side and one above the other. The old 'Postmodernism for Beginners' (Appignanesi & Garrett) illustrates this beautifully on pp. 39 and 40. A poor substitute for infinity this is - and Postmodernism was aware of this but didn't know how to correct it as the authors show!
Jerry Russell said:
Why are we even talking about GR? I don't claim to understand the first thing about it. And that's not because I think it's "incomprehensible", I just haven't put in the time & effort necessary to join the 'illuminated' ones on this particular topic.

I do know a little about SR, and I thought that's what we were going to be discussing?
Yes we will but we have to get the "repetitions" nonsense cleared out too - what Hegel called 'good infinity'.

Rather, the answer lies in true or bad infinity (Hegel's term), since a genuinely infinite universe does not undergo repetition of a mere exact cloning type. The reasons for this are not only the physical infinity of the universe (in space, time and the amount of matter) but because matter is infinitely divisible!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This is because GR teaches that space (or spacetime) is curved, and if so, even in the tiniest way, it means that the universe is finite
I've already disagreed with your premise. GR teaches that spacetime is locally curved, but (as I mentioned before):

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.

Or, if you prefer: spacetime might be locally curved in one region, and curved in an opposite sense in another region, so that the net curvature is zero. Therefore, GR is perfectly compatible with your preferred infinite universe.

Which brings up another problem: it seems that your only reason for rejecting the GR, is that (in your unique and so far unjustified opinion) it says the universe is too small for your grandiose desires.

But how do you know the universe is infinite? How could this even be a testable proposition?

I.e. what you call an "infinite universe" actually consists of mere repetitions - like Andy Warhol's bland painting of Campbell Soul cans side by side and one above the other.
Perhaps it would help if to realize that if you were to revisit those identical Campbell Soup cans discovered at opposite ends of the universe, a few moments later you might find that they were no longer identical. They would still look identical to the naked eye, but some radioactive particles located within the cans might decay differently. You would have to go searching some untold billions of miles further, to find another soup can that would only be identical for a moment. Or more billions of miles to find two soup cans that could stay the same for a few hours, days, months, or as long as you want.

The existence of these replications is another untestable hypothesis. Hence, I don't worry about it much. And so can you.

matter is infinitely divisible!
So now, in addition to rejecting SR, GR, and thermodynamics, you are also rejecting quantum theory? Good luck with that.

Remember my question above?

If you really have a new theoretical framework that's different from the old one, it should make some testable predictions that would be unexpected under the old paradigm. There should be experimental verification.

What have you got, Mr. Clawed Badly?
 
Last edited:
Once again Jerry, you keep inserting popular Einsteinian prejudices without thinking of the implications.
Jerry Russell said:
I've already disagreed with your premise. GR teaches that spacetime is locally curved, but (as I mentioned before):

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.

Or, if you prefer: spacetime might be locally curved in one region, and curved in an opposite sense in another region, so that the net curvature is zero. Therefore, GR is perfectly compatible with your preferred infinite universe.
Your argument is false since if you invoke local curving in one region and "curved in an opposite sense in another" you are trying to manufacture an infinite universe through cobbling together an infinite number of finite Einstein-type universes. Since Einstein's curved space(time) is curved due to the presence of matter, you are turning everything into a jumble since there is meant to be an overall gravitational pull on spacetime by all the matter in the universe.

I.e. you are working by circular reasoning, the hallmark of metaphysical (pro-religious) thinking - "spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve." IOW - Einstein tells you how to think without you understanding what you are doing.:eek:

To invoke local spacetime is agnosticism (Thomas Huxley, grandfather of Aldous) and postmodernism i.e. to deny that we can think clearly about transcendental issues such as the infinity of space, time and matter.

Jerry Russell said:
Which brings up another problem: it seems that your only reason for rejecting the GR, is that (in your unique and so far unjustified opinion) it says the universe is too small for your grandiose desires.

But how do you know the universe is infinite? How could this even be a testable proposition?
Firstly, if you assert that the universe is merely finite, you will find that the masses have only mathematics or religious mysticism to understand the infinite. The masses prefer the latter of course, therefore you are stuck with religious bigotry forever - i.e. the whole Postflaviana agenda goes down the drain. Furthermore, denying the infinity of the universe trivializes our own Earth and the environment since Einstein-preaching elites will say: "why bother about the environment, we will soon be able to travel along spacetime with warp drives to reach planets full of plants and animals like our own" - i.e. journeying to parallel universes, the whole of which is schlock as bad if not worse than any religious teaching!

By your highlighted question you indicate the boundary between science and philosophy - which modern 'science' tries to deny by claiming that science can explain everything while philosophy is a mere trivial pastime.

Hence you are reduced to 'perhaps' theorizing rather than sorting it out philosophically.
Jerry Russell said:
Perhaps it would help if to realize that if you were to revisit those identical Campbell Soup cans discovered at opposite ends of the universe, a few moments later you might find that they were no longer identical. They would still look identical to the naked eye, but some radioactive particles located within the cans might decay differently. You would have to go searching some untold billions of miles further, to find another soup can that would only be identical for a moment. Or more billions of miles to find two soup cans that could stay the same for a few hours, days, months, or as long as you want.

The existence of these replications is another untestable hypothesis. Hence, I don't worry about it much. And so can you.
But you invoked this nonsense in the first place i.e. " there is a finite and countable number of states of matter that can exist within it. So if the universe itself is infinite, then each finite zone within it must exist in multiple copies, that is, "parallel universes". So now you say there are some imperfect repetitions, which only confounds your previous claims since these imperfect and perfect repetitions are in parallel-&-daughter universes!

So when I wrote: "Rather, the answer lies in true or bad infinity (Hegel's term), since a genuinely infinite universe does not undergo repetition of a mere exact cloning type. The reasons for this are not only the physical infinity of the universe (in space, time and the amount of matter) but because matter is infinitely divisible!" you say in reply:
Jerry Russell said:
So now, in addition to rejecting SR, GR, and thermodynamics, you are also rejecting quantum theory? Good luck with that.

Remember my question above?

If you really have a new theoretical framework that's different from the old one, it should make some testable predictions that would be unexpected under the old paradigm. There should be experimental verification.

What have you got, Mr. Clawed Badly?:mad::mad::mad:
:D:D:D
Well for starters you have misinterpreted thermodynamics - and its offspring quantum theory (QT). QT does NOT deny that matter is infinitely divisible. QT has three different interpretations.

Type A: Local Realism - which teaches that subatomic particles are abstract dimensionless points (i.e. Einstein's option on QT).
Type B: Nonlocal Reality - the theory developed from Blokhintsev, Bohm & Vigier and supported by Lerner's Plasma Cosmology (though Lerner doesn't develop the quantum question).
Type C: The Copenhagen Interpretation - i.e. "Complementarity" (a.k.a. dialecticism) which denies that there is any physical reality underneath quantum theory, hence neither point-particles nor the infinite divisibility of matter can even be addressed; its philosophical basis is a misinterpretation of Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle." I.e. there is ONLY the maths.

The correct interpretation of QT is of course type B, since it is type A and C only that deny the infinite divisibility of matter. Note that Vigier was a Marxist too - if that will help with your smelling salts recovery!;)

We cannot test for infinity directly - but what we can do is show that ideas and theories that lead to invoking and believing in a finite universe lead to logical paradoxes. The prime theory of this kind of course is Einstein's special relativity (SR).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
So let me put it simply.
The new theoretical framework is actually a development of the older of one Galileo - all motion is relative. To support this there is the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology which teaches that every larger volumes of space in the infinite universe have increasingly lower density. (I.e. there is no 'average density of matter in the universe' as Einstein claims).

Space, time and matter are ontologically separate i.e. they bear no causal relation upon one another (i.e. spacetime and curved space are flatly denied because they lead to logical paradoxes). I.e. matter, space and time constitute the most fundamental division of Being. IOW the universe does not comprise matter alone (as opposed to what most Marxists teach); rather, space and time are equally fundamental. Time flows evenly throughout the universe as Newton claimed, while space is Euclidean without any curvature - unlike that of fields (which are material phenomena i.e. types of matter) inside space.

Matter in a high energy form in outer space comprises plasma, hot ionized gases which behave quite differently to ordinary gases. Lerner (pp. 369-370) develops this idea marvellously where he finds that the equations of hydrodynamics in plasma correspond with the Schrodinger equation for quantum theory. My only addition here is I was able to work out what well-attested quantum phenomenon correlates to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, the original formulation of QT!

Finally, the Aspect Experiment plus two US patents, demonstrate that Einstein's SR which claims that "nothing than travel faster than light" has been refuted. Faster than light information transfer is now a standard physics experiment procedure, but, due to the idiotic belief in SR, the researchers will not accept what their actual experiments are showing them!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The new theoretical framework is actually a development of the older of one Galileo - all motion is relative. To support this there is the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology which teaches that every larger volumes of space in the infinite universe have increasingly lower density. (I.e. there is no 'average density of matter in the universe' as Einstein claims).
According to this "Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology", would it logically follow that some particular volume of space has the largest density of anywhere in the universe? And, increasingly larger volumes of space would have lower density? If that's the case (and I can't bring myself to conceive otherwise) then wouldn't it follow that the volume of space with the largest density of anywhere in the universe, would define the center of a frame of reference, thus defeating your Galilean framework?

Is there any actual evidence of such a density gradient in the universe?

(i.e. spacetime and curved space are flatly denied because they lead to logical paradoxes).
If you think you are seeing logical paradoxes: perhaps the problem is in your philosophy and your so-called "logic" -- and not in the facts, or in the mathematical models built upon them. As I'm sure you're aware, many of these 'paradoxes' have been explained so that most practitioners are satisfied that there's no real problem.

The truly unresolved paradoxes (such as EPR, discussed below) have led to remarkable progress and new discoveries.

Time flows evenly throughout the universe as Newton claimed, while space is Euclidean without any curvature - unlike that of fields (which are material phenomena i.e. types of matter) inside space.
This appears to contradict both SR and GR, along with the abundant experimental demonstrations of the same. To explain away all the experimental results under this paradigm, you're going to need to engage in very extensive sophistry, to say the least.

You're taking me backwards here. Where is the experimental result that you can explain, that SR and GR can't?

Matter in a high energy form in outer space comprises plasma, hot ionized gases which behave quite differently to ordinary gases. Lerner (pp. 369-370) develops this idea marvellously where he finds that the equations of hydrodynamics in plasma correspond with the Schrodinger equation for quantum theory. My only addition here is I was able to work out what well-attested quantum phenomenon correlates to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, the original formulation of QT!
At first glance, I don't have any objection to this. Lerner accepts SR and GR and works within those premises.

Finally, the Aspect Experiment plus two US patents, demonstrate that Einstein's SR which claims that "nothing than travel faster than light" has been refuted. Faster than light information transfer is now a standard physics experiment procedure, but, due to the idiotic belief in SR, the researchers will not accept what their actual experiments are showing them!
Yes, it seems that Einstein was mistaken when he claimed that the "spooky action at a distance" could not exist. The "spooky action at a distance" has been shown to operate at a speed at least four orders of magnitude faster than light. See:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0614.pdf

But can it truly be said that this "spooky action" constitutes "travel", or that there is anything "moving"? Can this "spooky action" be used to transfer "information" or anything else?

I'm curious about the US patents that you mention, since the patent office normally only awards patents for useful, practical embodiments.
 
I've delayed replying here due to the difficulty of trying to keep the reply comprehensible.
Jerry Russell said:
According to this "Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology", would it logically follow that some particular volume of space has the largest density of anywhere in the universe?
The largest density??? I think you mean the "least" density as the larger the volume we consider, the lower is the density of matter. This is an infinite process without an end in either direction.
Jerry Russell said:
And, increasingly larger volumes of space would have lower density? If that's the case (and I can't bring myself to conceive otherwise) then wouldn't it follow that the volume of space with the largest density of anywhere in the universe, would define the center of a frame of reference, thus defeating your Galilean framework?
Since there is no "largest density" nor "least density" in an infinite universe, nor would there be a "centre of a frame of reference." What you have invoked above is the philosophical doctrine of logocentrism, that Reason is self-referential. But clearing up your words here, happily also clears up the issue!:)
Jerry Russell said:
Is there any actual evidence of such a density gradient in the universe?
Yes, we see this from subatomic particles, through the solar system to the Milky Way and with galactic recession velocities increasing with distance from us.
Jerry Russell said:
If you think you are seeing logical paradoxes: perhaps the problem is in your philosophy and your so-called "logic" -- and not in the facts, or in the mathematical models built upon them. As I'm sure you're aware, many of these 'paradoxes' have been explained so that most practitioners are satisfied that there's no real problem.
The mathematical models ignore the logical paradoxes, since the logical paradoxes ONLY appear when the mathematics is applied to physical situation as when special relativity (SR) is applied to an actual physical situation, i.e. they are logical paradoxes in nature, not mathematical paradoxes.

The great discovery from the EPR paradox was the Aspect Experiment, demonstrating faster-than-light (FTL) propagation of information, effectively disproving SR!
Jerry Russell said:
The truly unresolved paradoxes (such as EPR, discussed below) have led to remarkable progress and new discoveries.
That time flows evenly throughout the universe is a philosophical proposition underlying genuine science - and flatly contradicts SR & GR.
Jerry Russell said:
This appears to contradict both SR and GR, along with the abundant experimental demonstrations of the same. To explain away all the experimental results under this paradigm, you're going to need to engage in very extensive sophistry, to say the least.

You're taking me backwards here. Where is the experimental result that you can explain, that SR and GR can't?
The SR & GR explanations create logical paradoxes. When the correct explanation is shown, it does not and will not lead to logical paradoxes. There are NO proofs for SR & GR as the supposed proofs merely presume that the SR-based principles and presumptions are correct, the supposed explanations merely distorting the situation in favour of Einstein's teachings.
 
Top