How Einstein Changed the World

Dec 27, 2022
Brian Greene: "How Einstein Changed the World. In March of that year he argued that light, long described as a wave, is actually composed of particles."

"If light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd...the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

"Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151
Sep 11, 2022
A suggestion, if I may. If you have questions about Einstein's theories or if you believe that you have uncovered a flaw in them, why not ask on a page dedicated to such a purpose. Wikipedia's Reference Desk comes to mind, but obviously there are more specialized websites where experts answer Q's from the public. Here, it seems there are no experts available, or they are giving you the cold shoulder.
Dec 27, 2022
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, theoreticians repudiate the "immediate consequence", spacetime, and worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound."

"Was Einstein wrong? Do we have to kill off the theory of space and time to make sense of the universe?"

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, [Lee] Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas."

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..."

Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?"

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time...Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another..."

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
George Orwell described a world where brainwashing consists in announcing utmost idiocies that the victims not just accept but sincerely believe:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Brainwashing in Einstein's schizophrenic world is equally efficient (even though physical persecution, an important persuasive factor in Big Brother's world, is not allowed). Consider this:

LIGO fakers: "The fact that the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves is simply because they both travel at the speed of information."

This statement is by no means less idiotic than 2+2=5, and yet the scientific community sincerely believes it - no protesting comments.

Peter Woit: "The worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology."

The correct number is 118, not 25:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
Once more. The "clock paradox" works just fine, works perfectly, regarding the observed (the observable) subjectively relative clock in the observed (the observable) subjectively relative universe. It not only doesn't work, but it also ceases to exist as any clock whatsoever and, therefore, any paradox whatsoever regarding the unobserved (the unobservable) objectively real clock in the unobserved (the unobservable) objectively real universe. When a physicist thinks and teaches that the first clock is both clocks in one single unification of clock, and one single unification of universe, for all intents and purposes, he deals in mindless mediocrity and indoctrinates idiocy.
Last edited: