A new paper by a UK academic attempts to slay two giants in one claiming that the Large Hadron Collider didn\’t work not because of mechanical failure, but because basic theories of physics may be wrong.
 |
| Dr Peter Hayes ‘scrutinises’ Albert Einstein’s legacy |
Dr Peter Hayes of the University of Sunderland said: “Theoretical physicists have been barking up the wrong tree for the last hundred years – because Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity is inconsistent.
“Over the years many people have pointed out that there are logical flaws in the theory. Back in the 1960s Professor Herbert Dingle warned that large scale experiments drawing on relativity theory might end by destroying the world. Perhaps we are lucky that the Large Hadron Collider merely broke down!”
Perhaps tellingly Dr Peter Hayes is senior lecturer in politics – not physics. In his latest paper he argues that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity – perhaps the most famous scientific theory in history – should be viewed as an ideology, not as a science. He argues that its impact on popular culture and science has been so influential precisely because as a scientific theory it doesn’t actually make sense.
"Precisely because Einstein’s theory is inconsistent, its supporters have drawn on contradictory principles in a way that greatly expanded their apparent ability to explain the universe.
"Most crazes die out when it becomes obvious that they were overblown. The amazing thing about Einstein’s theory of relativity is that it has kept going. It is built on contradictions, but these very contradictions means that almost anything ‘proves’ that it is right. It is a bit like a theory where you say 1 + 1 = 2, but also that 1+ 1 = 3."
Hayes is quick to point out that describing relativity theory as an ideology, rather than a science, is the same as saying that the theory is worthless.
“Marxism is an ideology, not a science, but Karl Marx still gives valuable insights into the workings of capitalism. Once relativity theory is understood for what it is, an ideology, we can better understand where Einstein’s theory of relativity can offer insights for science, and where it can’t.”
Loading ...
Starting from Einstein’s 1905 light postulate, one deduces that the 80m long pole can safely be trapped inside the 40m long barn, and that the bug is both dead and alive. These are absurd conclusions (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM) suggesting that Einstein’s 1905 light postulate is false, and that its antithesis given by Newton’s emission theory of light is true:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
“These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won’t fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer…..So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed…..If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
“The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox…..The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed…..All this is nonsense from the bug’s point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn’t get close to the bug….The paradox is not resolved.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
“Relativity and Its Roots” By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: “Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; 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. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
In fact, all physical theories since Aristotelian physics, describes reality in a way that is very far away from a common sense understanding of the world. Newton claimed for example that a thing set in motion will keep moving forever. No one had ever observed this and common sense dictates that a thing set in motion will come to rest after a while. Galileo claimed that all objects fall equally fast to the ground while common sense dictates that light objects, like feathers, fall to the ground much slower than heavy objects. Newton developed mathematics that when applied to his physics claimed that a moving object had a defined speed even at every instant, while common sense dictates that if you freeze everything at an instant all the things you freeze stand absolutely still. The atomic theory of Democritus claimed that even air consists of small hard indivisible particles, while common sense dictates that if this were true these small objects would fall down as a rain of tiny stones to the ground. Copernicus claimed that the Earth was moving while common sense tells us that if it were moving we all would notice that, and we don\’t.
So if the game is to trap physical theories into reductio ad absurdum arguments using common sense logic and common sense notions of the world, we can for sure extend that game to include all of physics, not just the theories of Albert Einstein.
But if you don\’t find the examples in the first paragraph above as compelling reductio ad absurdum arguments, you have for sure been brain washed. This brain washing is due to a world wide conspiracy mainly towards defenceless kids called \”the school system,\” and the brain washing itself is known as \”education.\” Please stay away from that as much as you can as it can irreparably damage your natural intuition for common sense.