|
|
|
carlzim
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2002 : 09:04:03
|
Hi, I understand that Nikola Tesla disagreed with Einstein's relativity theories. What was the disagreement? What is the latest thinking on this? Do various Physicists favor relativistic Physics, others favor non-relativistic Physics and some favor a combination of both? What are some practical applications of these concepts?
Please e-mail your replies to me at czfz@earthlink.net. Thank you. Carl Zimmerman, USA
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2002 : 09:40:14 [Permalink]
|
You only need to ask once.
Tesla and many other scientists of the time did indeed disagree with Einstein's theories when they were first published. Until Einstein people thought that light traveled through a medium called aether like sound does through air.
The Aether theory has been dead for a long time. No serious scientists today accepts the aether theory, but there are still books published by pseudo-scientist that try to confuse the issue.
|
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2002 : 10:28:59 [Permalink]
|
To add some things to my earlier post:
There seems to be slight confusion on the meaning of terms.
Non-relativistc physics commonly refers to situations where the use of einstein's relativistic equations is not needed and you can use Newtons physics to get a correct answer. They don't usually refer to alternate theories or scientific models for the area where one would need relativistic physics.
One of your posts was asking if Einstein was wrong. That is not a question easily answered. Einstein gave us a new model of how our universe worked. For most problems we get the same answers that the model before it gave us. For some problems (relativistc problems) it gives us different answers then Newton's model gave us. Many of those have been experimentally tested and we have found that einsteins model was better at predicting the right outcome in those situations. There are however still areas where Einsteins model does not really work and we have to use a different model. Quantum Physics.
Much energy is invested today to create a new model that will work for both quantum and relativsitc problems.
Does that mean that Einstein was wrong? Does it mean that Newton was wrong? Will the inventors of the next big model be proven wrong when somebody comes up with something that works even better?
That depends on your defintion of wrong.
What there can be no doubt about is that Einstein's models works (for it's area) better then anything else we have come up so far in predicting reality.
The third point are the practical applications. For most problems you encounter in everyday life you won't need relativistic physics. Newton's models works fine and the added accuracy you would gain by solving the problem with relativistc science would be meaningless.
Using relativistic physics only really make sense in extreme situations. Like when calculating for example problems involving extremly high speeds close to the speed of light. That is why we call those speed relativistic speeds.
|
|
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2002 : 22:08:53 [Permalink]
|
When people point to science, they often address how many scientists were proven wrong. In a high school chemistry class (mere weeks ago) I and my class was taught that Dalton was wrong in nearly all of his findings, so was Thomson and Rutherford, with no explanations that science is trial and error, with people building on others mistakes. Sure, Einstien MAY have been wrong, but does that make him any less of a brilliant scientist? What he did was revolutionary in its own right, and unless it is proven we are on a flat earth, and the sky is a ceiling, we cannot take that away.
|
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 08:27:17 [Permalink]
|
That the basic concept of a universal ether which, among other things, provides full justification and explanation of the so-called paranormal world, has been methodically eliminated from contemporary "science" stands as one of the greatest and most shameful conspiracies of our time. Further, in that you have both suffered the skulduggery, suppression and persecution of the fearful and arrogant for daring to present your cosmically revolutionary science, it was particularly exhilarating to share in such a profoundly fascinating discussion. The repression of your brilliantly innovative work by establishment orthodox science, academia and religion must not stand. The concept of subatomic life after death and the reality of the "paranormal" is the birthright of every human being. Again, I commend both of you for opening new doors to the universe for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Jeff Rense
An interview worth reading - www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/pearson/interview.htm |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 09:11:39 [Permalink]
|
I don't think that I've ever read a better posting than Lars_H's above.
_____________________________________
 As to Phantom's last: Why don't you (and Dr. Pearson--what an abominable interview!!--) move out of 18th Century Physics and into the 21st? All of the problems addressed by Pearson (and you) can be (at least somewhat) adequately addressed in the context of modern String Theory. The answers found may or may not be correct but at least no one has to have recourse to totally discredited theories such as the Aether Hypothes. (After centuries of searching, has anyone ever been able to measure even the smallest aspect of aether? NYET!!)
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 09:16:44 [Permalink]
|
There is a binary star called DI Herculis which does not behave as Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts. The periapse of DI Her's should precess 4.27 degrees per century, according to general relativity. Instead, the precession is only 1.05 degrees per century.
Also, another binary star called AS Camelopardalis appears to contradict general relativity. General relativity predicts that AS Cam's periapse will precess 44.3 degrees per century. Instead, the periapse precesses only 15 degrees per century.
These binary systems were being looked at because they seemed to be a good test of how general relativity operates in systems where spacetime is significantly curved. DI Her's components are 4.5 and 5.2 solar masses, 1/5 of an astronomical unit apart; AS Cam's components are 3.3 and 2.5 solar masses, 1/10 of an AU apart. Both systems are close enough to strongly curve spacetime, but not close enough to cause tidal deformation of the component stars. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 09:58:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
There is a binary star called DI Herculis which does not behave as Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts.
See DI Herculis . |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 10:56:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
As to Phantom's last: Why don't you (and Dr. Pearson--what an abominable interview!!--) move out of 18th Century Physics and into the 21st? All of the problems addressed by Pearson (and you) can be (at least somewhat) adequately addressed in the context of modern String Theory. The answers found may or may not be correct but at least no one has to have recourse to totally discredited theories such as the Aether Hypothes. (After centuries of searching, has anyone ever been able to measure even the smallest aspect of aether? NYET!!)
Did you even read the interview? Pearson states:
But these problems are still baffling cosmologists. For proof look at a book by Brian Green published in 1999 about the latest craze, "superstrings", expected to provide the physicists holy grail, the theory of everything. The book is called, "The Elegant Universe", written as a popularisation to boost enthusiasm for this theory. It admits on page 225 that the theory is unable to solve the problem of the cosmological constant. He also admits on page 211 that the theory cannot yet provide a single valid prediction able to confront the data followed by, "Is string theory right? We just don't know."
I suppose you are ignorant towards the growing evidence coming from NDE research and the studies on mediums which point towards the continuance of conciousness upon physical death. How do you reconcile this with what 'mainstream science' tells us? |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 10:59:30 [Permalink]
|
So your answer is to throw out everything we do know in favor of things no one has ever collected anything on? Yeah, good plan.
NDE is fully understood. In fact, I am thinking maybe you are not getting enough oxygen...
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 11:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
So your answer is to throw out everything we do know in favor of things no one has ever collected anything on? Yeah, good plan.
NDE is fully understood. In fact, I am thinking maybe you are not getting enough oxygen...
@tomic
No need to stoop to such a childish response...I make no apologies for discussing a possible alternative that may shatter shatter your precious paradigm of the universe? Not getting enough oxygen...? *yawn* too funny...
I would like you to provide me with an explanation with regards to the following info on NDEs.
According to Dr Peter Fenwick, "...a satisfactory explanation of conciousness must include three vital components: a detailed role for brain mechanisms, an explanation for the action of mind outside the brain, and an explanation of free will, meaning and purpose. It should give an explanation of wide mental states, including mystical experiences and near-death experiences...as well as some solution to the question raised of the survival of aspects of conciousness after death."
With regards to evidence...are you familiar with the two independent prospective studies carried out in Britain and also in Holland published in the medical journal Resuscitation? In these studies carried out in hospital patients who had survived a cardiac arrest it was seen that NDEs occur in around 6-12%. The British study did not find any evidence to support the role of a lack of oxygen, an increase in carbon dioxide or the use of drugs in causing the experiences. Both studies commented on the inadequacies of current brain based theories to account for the experiences as they appeared to be occurring at a time when the brain was not functioning.
It has led to evidence which points to the survival of consciousness once a patient has been described as 'clinically dead'.
During the study period, 63 cardiac arrest patients survived and were interviewed within a week. Of those, 56 had no recollection of their period of unconsciousness, a result that might have been expected in all cases.
Seven survivors, however, had memories, although only four passed the Grayson scale, the strict medical criteria for assessing near-death experiences.
By examining medical records, the researchers said the contention of many critics that near-death experiences were the result of a collapse of brain functions caused by lack of oxygen were highly unlikely. None of those who underwent the experiences had low levels of oxygen.
Researchers were also able to rule out claims that unusual combinations of drugs were to blame because the resuscitation procedure in the hospital unit was the same in every case. The patients brought back to life were all, for varying lengths of time, clinically dead with no pulse, no respiration and fixed dilated pupils.
When the heart stops, the brain rhythms are normal for about 6 seconds & then they rapidly decay and you get a flat EEG which in turn means that all our cortical structures which create our world for us are not working.
So if it doesn't occur as your going down & if it doesn't occur while you are in the depth of the experience, (DURING the period when the brain was dead) - because it can't in our science - then perhaps it occurs as your recovering? But if you deprive the brain of oxygen & you recover from it, your thinking is all over the place. Well, the thing about the NDE is it's highly lucid & very clear so it can't be in the confusional arousal. So when did it occur?
Dr. Fenwick says the following about what happens to the brain during a near-death experience:
"In the near-death experience, you are unconscious. One of the things we know about brain function in unconsciousness, is that you cannot create images and if you do, you cannot remember them…The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [an near-death experience], you come out with clear, lucid memories ... This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact."
The study concluded that a number of people have almost certainly had these experiences after they were pronounced clinically dead. This would suggest that the mind or consciousness can survive the death of the brain.
Dr Parnia said: "These people were having these experiences when we wouldn't expect them to happen, when the brain shouldn't be able to sustain lucid processes or allow them to form memories that would last. So it might hold an answer to the question of whether mind or consciousness is actually produced by the brain or whether the brain is a kind of intermediary for the mind, which exists independently...If the brain is like an intermediary which manifests the mind, like a television will act as an intermediary to manifest waves in the air into a picture or a sound, we can show that the mind is still there after the brain is dead. And that is what I think these near-death experiences indicate."
Veridical evidence - some people have seen or heard things while outside of their physical bodies during an near-death experience which is later verified to be true by third parties. People see things that they "shouldn't" have been able to see…people hear conversations that they "shouldn't" have been able to hear. Often, such things are observed by NDE experiencers when they are away from their physical body.
Pam Reynold's NDE account is interesting since it took place under highly controlled conditions. She developed a "giant basilar artery aneurysm," a weakness in the wall of the large artery at the base of the brain that caused it to balloon.
She underwent an operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who performed it, which required that her body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms she would be dead. Yet she was still able to encounter a NDE. Reynolds was later able to describe much of what went on in the surgical room, including the small dent in the saw the doctors used on her head and the case in which they stored the blades.
Most fascinating are those cases which involve NDEs in people born blind: People who are born without eyesight see for the first time in their lives while out of their bodies during their NDE.
Although such reports may not actually represent analog to retinal vision as such, it is evident that the blind have access to a kind of 'expanded supersensory awareness' that may in itself not be explicable by normal means. NDE Researcher Kenneth Ring argues that the blind - as well as others who experience an NDE or OBE - enter into a distinctive state of transcendental awareness that he calls 'mindsight'. Thus it is that the blind may perceive what they cannot literally see. Clearly this is not simple "vision" at all, as we commonly understand it, but almost a kind of omniscience.
|
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 12:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
So your answer is to throw out everything we do know in favor of things no one has ever collected anything on? Yeah, good plan.
@tomic
Ron Pearson - Science, however, cannot progress by theory alone; it requires a synthesis of theory and experiment. When observation runs ahead of theory to provide anomalies which seem inexplicable, then as history has shown by repeating itself over and over, the anomalies are avoided, ignored or discredited in order to maintain the status quo: to avoid the need to injure existing intellectual vested interests. |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 14:45:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, that was unexpected. From Einstein's TofR to a monologue on NDE's in less than one page. Any chance of returning to the original topic anytime soon?
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 15:10:01 [Permalink]
|
Phantom,
There will always be case studies and anecdotes to support even the grandest ideas. The testimonies of MDs and other medical personnel are often interesting, but they are not science.
What you have right now are anomalies. If you wish to explain these anomalies, you must isolate causes and effects, eliminating possibilities until you are left with only one. We can do this using the scientific method and by focusing on naturalistic causes and naturalistic effects. As soon as you allow the possibility of a supernatural phenomenon, all bets are off - any method you once used to distinguish between real and false naturalistic causes is entirely useless.
Let's consider the NDE. Off the top of my brain, I come up with the following supernatural explanations:
1. The spirit leaves the body and "senses" things.
2. The ghost of Van Gogh appears and creates a spiritual painting of the scene which is inserted into the brain as a seamless memory.
3. God creates a "spiritual conduit" and pipes sensory data directly into the brain.
Obviously, this could continue, ad infinitum, inserting various divine beings into the various roles. So, which one is correct, and why? We have no information regarding the fundamental properties of any of the above mechanisms - they all violate naturalistic cause-and-effect to some degree. You're left appealing to extra-sensory methods of knowing or revelation of some kind. But those are at least externally indistinguishable from John Gacy and the neighbor's dog. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 15:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by TG
Well, that was unexpected. From Einstein's TofR to a monologue on NDE's in less than one page. Any chance of returning to the original topic anytime soon?
I think NDEs do tie in with the original topic. Einsteins relativity theory cannot account for 'paranormal' events.
Einstein himself on his seventieth birthday: "There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I am not sure if I was on the right track after all." Over the past several years, other physicists and cosmologists worldwide have also come to the general agreement that "Einstein's laws contain some flaws."
www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/snyder.html
PhDreamer - I will respond to your response as soon as possible. |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2003 : 15:34:19 [Permalink]
|
| Einstein's ToR cannot account for the fact that blue is my favorite color, either. Shall we discuss that next in this thread? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
