The scenario as I have found it historically --

*Einstein appears to have sub-contracted his maths out to other people; he was never any good himself at maths. So, the maths that comes from him is a mix of different maths mistakes.

* Although we commonly led to believe that Einstein overthrew Newtonian physics in 1919 -- really the completed version of physics came in the mid-18th century after Newton's death, when the Royal Society agreed that the completed version of Newton's theory was Boscovich's theory. Boscovich's theory was then known thereafter as Newtonian theory. i.e. there was too versions of Newtonian theory -- (1) the uncompleted version as left by Newton and (2) the Boscovich version. This FACT gets lost.

*The maths of Special relativity has mistakes in it. Newtonian theory is still able to deal with the MM experiment -- that is the Boscovich version of Newtonian theory with its Galilean relativity.

*A lot of people get diverted into attacking relativity in general; claiming all relativity wrong. But pre-Einstein there was an existing relativity theory that of Galileo.

*The Einstein crowd do their maths wrong for Special Relativity, then they have difficulty dealing with gravity/acceleration because of doing it wrong. They then have to add another mistake to change the theory from Special Relativity to General relativity, so as to get the desired agreement vwith experiment.

When the Einstein crowd did the maths for light bending within the context of Newtonian theory, they do the maths wrong again.

So-- the sceanrio is just of doing the maths wrong, not correcting the maths and adding more mistakes to Einstein's theory to get it to work.

While the existing theory pre-Einstein was just misrepresented by the Einstein crowd as they did the maths wrong within that context; and do the maths correctly and "it" still works.


So the History of 20th Century physics is -- make a maths mistake create a new theory that does not quite work, then add another maths mistake to make it work a bit better, then add another maths mistake and so on--- i.e. keep building on maths mistakes.

regards
Roger

The scenario as I have found it historically --

cinci: Wecome abourd Roger, you'll have a lot of sympathetic company here.
***********************


Roger: *Einstein appears to have sub-contracted his maths out to other people; he was never any good himself at maths. So, the maths that comes from him is a mix of different maths mistakes.

cinci: Care to point out some of these mistakes or do we just have your word on this?
***********************


Roger: * Although we commonly led to believe that Einstein overthrew Newtonian physics in 1919 -- really the completed version of physics came in the mid-18th century after Newton's death, when the Royal Society agreed that the completed version of Newton's theory was Boscovich's theory. Boscovich's theory was then known thereafter as Newtonian theory. i.e. there was too versions of Newtonian theory -- (1) the uncompleted version as left by Newton and (2) the Boscovich version. This FACT gets lost.

cinci: I find that he was among the first to support Neton's theory, not that he changed it.
****************************


Roger: *The maths of Special relativity has mistakes in it. Newtonian theory is still able to deal with the MM experiment -- that is the Boscovich version of Newtonian theory with its Galilean relativity.

cinci: Every anti-reltivists sayst this....noe have shown any errors to date. Care to try? And no, only realtivity has a valid answer for the MMX.
*****************************


Roger: *A lot of people get diverted into attacking relativity in general; claiming all relativity wrong. But pre-Einstein there was an existing relativity theory that of Galileo.

cinci: Correct, but pre-Einstein everybody thought it was correct for mchanical laws but not for electrodynamics laws. Einstein extended it to electrodynamics as well.
**************************

Roger: *The Einstein crowd do their maths wrong for Special Relativity, then they have difficulty dealing with gravity/acceleration because of doing it wrong. They then have to add another mistake to change the theory from Special Relativity to General relativity, so as to get the desired agreement vwith experiment.

cinci: SR explicilty excludes the effects of gravity so relativists do not try to deal with gravity with SR. Acceleration can be dealt with using SR. GR does include the effects of gravity.
************************


Roger: When the Einstein crowd did the maths for light bending within the context of Newtonian theory, they do the maths wrong again.

cinci: I presume here you are referring to the fact that Eisntein originally had an error of a factor of two in his original prediction. Everybody makes math errors; they are not the exclusive provence of relativists.
*****************************

Roger: So-- the sceanrio is just of doing the maths wrong, not correcting the maths and adding more mistakes to Einstein's theory to get it to work.

cinci: Wow, the hat trick....maybe relativists should take uphockey.
***************************

Roger: While the existing theory pre-Einstein was just misrepresented by the Einstein crowd as they did the maths wrong within that context; and do the maths correctly and "it" still works.

cinci: Do you have any examples of this?
*******************


Roger: So the History of 20th Century physics is -- make a maths mistake create a new theory that does not quite work, then add another maths mistake to make it work a bit better, then add another maths mistake and so on--- i.e. keep building on maths mistakes.

cinci: Gee, all these math mistakes and not a sinlge mathematician on the planet noticed......except you.
***********************

cinci: Gee, all these math mistakes and not a sinlge mathematician on the planet noticed......except you.

Because (1)I am good.(2) It has not been published much that the unified theory of physics is Boscovich's theory; so most don't realise that one needs to check if the maths has been done correctly from that theory and (3)It takes a great deal of effort to go through such texts.

My articles are published here at General Science Journal. Babin agrees that physics can be done much more simply from Classical physics than from Einstein's relativity.

Instead of correcting a maths mistake, "they" (i.e. the mainstream) add another maths mistake to it; so "they" are building upon maths mistakes.

In the case of the lightbending observation circa 1919:

From Newtonian theory for light bending we have a vector sum of the velocity
vector of the light under the influence of a vector of motion caused by
gravity of sun. It is just a mere Pythagorean triangle, but the mainstream
proceed by doing the maths wrong-- they draw the Pythagorean triangle wrong
and calculate from that.The angle is then half which is observed. One way
of proceeding would be to add another mistake to the maths they have already
done; and that is indeed what they do, and they then call it a new theory --
General relativity -- where the maths they have to invent to compensate for
doing the maths wrong in the first place gets very complicated.


regards
Roger

Roger Anderton : My articles are published here at General Science Journal. Babin agrees that physics can be done much more simply from Classical physics than from Einstein's relativity.

Don't delude yourself, this forum is for antirelativistic lunatics. You haven't "published" anything really. You just uploaded your nonsense.

I am Pro Relativity, just existing texts have alot of maths mistakes in it.

And 'Internet publishing' suits me fine.

regards
Roger

Roger Anderton : I am Pro Relativity, just existing texts have alot of maths mistakes in it.

No, the texts have no errors, you just have a lot of holes in your understanding.

Shut up Ted. You are just being an ignorant oaf as usual.

There are alot of maths mistakes in relativity texts, such as:
Einstein's 1912 manuscript on special relativity, isbn 0-8076-1532-3 points out f used when should be e, dashes missed and numerous mistakes like that are pointed out in the added notes.

Ted and Max must be cousins. They think their silly self-aggrandizing posts are respected by others. Are you impressed?

Hi Curt,

I was not impressed by Ted.

To Ted:

As much as I appreciate your pro-relativity posts on this forum, it's becoming increasingly difficult to resist an increasing momentum to have your IP blocked.

As a final request, therefore, please keep any abusive exchange between you and AAF only.

To Stanley : there are many more idiots besides AAF posting in this forum : Curt Young, bob s, Harry Ricker.

cinci: Gee, all these math mistakes and not a sinlge mathematician on the planet noticed......except you.


Roger: Because (1)I am good.(2) It has not been published much that the unified theory of physics is Boscovich's theory; so most don't realise that one needs to check if the maths has been done correctly from that theory and (3)It takes a great deal of effort to go through such texts.

cinci: (1) I'm pretty good myself. (2) I don't really care if Boscovich got published or not, only if he's diferent than reltivity and how. (3) I'm not interested in the fact that there may be errors in texts. I'd be interested in errors in Eisntein's 1905 paper of SR.
**************************


Roger: My articles are published here at General Science Journal. Babin agrees that physics can be done much more simply from Classical physics than from Einstein's relativity.

Instead of correcting a maths mistake, "they" (i.e. the mainstream) add another maths mistake to it; so "they" are building upon maths mistakes.


cinci: I'd be interested in a link to your papers.
********************

Roger: In the case of the lightbending observation circa 1919:

From Newtonian theory for light bending we have a vector sum of the velocity vector of the light under the influence of a vector of motion caused by gravity of sun. It is just a mere Pythagorean triangle, but the mainstream proceed by doing the maths wrong-- they draw the Pythagorean triangle wrong and calculate from that.The angle is then half which is observed. One way of proceeding would be to add another mistake to the maths they have already done; and that is indeed what they do, and they then call it a new theory -- General relativity -- where the maths they have to invent to compensate for doing the maths wrong in the first place gets very complicated.

cinci: Aw Roger, that's a pretty revisionist view of history. I'm not sure anybody even thought of measuring this deflection until relativity came along. If they had, they had 350 years to check it out. I believe they only looked at a Newtonian version after relativity to see if there would be a difference. And anybody can say they did it wrong.
**********************

cinci: (1) I'm pretty good myself.

Good.

cinci:(2) I don't really care if Boscovich got published or not, only if he's diferent than reltivity and how.

Relativity theory existed in a different form pre-Einstein.


cinci:(3) I'm not interested in the fact that there may be errors in texts. I'd be interested in errors in Eisntein's 1905 paper of SR.


Relativity theory is not presented nowadays in the way Einstein did in his 1905 paper. So, it would be difficult to compare what he said then , with the way its now presented.

cinci: I'd be interested in a link to your papers.

My articles are:


Roger Anderton:
Added Nov. 26, 2008: Newtonian Light Bending
Added Nov. 22, 2008: Boscovich's Principle: Foundation of Relativity
Added Nov. 22, 2008: Boscovich's Theory: Strict Newtonian Physics
Added Nov. 21, 2008: An Attempt to Revive Interest in Boscovich's Theory
Added Nov. 2, 2008: Light Waves and Special Relativity
Added Oct. 23, 2008: Cosmology as Christian Theology
Added Sep. 30, 2008: The Speed of Light "Is" C or the Speed of Light "Seems" C
Added Feb. 5, 2008: Einstein's Unified Field Theory is Newtonian Relativity Theory
Added Jan. 29, 2008: Maxwell-Tombe's Unified Force Equation
Added Jan. 21, 2008: Unified Field Theory: Basics
Added Mar. 12, 2007: An Analysis of Special Relativity from a Boscovichian Perspective
Added Jan. 2, 2007: Einstein, Ether and Unified Field
Added Oct. 10, 2006: Boscovich's Theory and Newton's Third Law
Added May 25, 2006: A Re-Examination of the Concept of Ether in Relativity Theory
Added Apr. 11, 2006: Unified Field Theory Coverup

at:
http://www.wbabin.net/papers.htm


cinci: I'm not sure anybody even thought of measuring this deflection until relativity came along. If they had, they had 350 years to check it out. I believe they only looked at a Newtonian version after relativity to see if there would be a difference. And anybody can say they did it wrong.

There were various people who tried to do lightbending calculation within context of Newtonian physics pre-Einstein. Such as Soldner (circa 1804)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Soldner
They didn't have the astronomical sophistication of instruments to be able to do the experiment for a long time. A lot of people have said the experiment was done wrong in 1919, such as Poor http://www.wbabin.net/poor4.pdf

My insight is that "they" drew the vector sum diagram wrong for Newtonian physics -simple Pythagorean theorem but done wrong.

Similarly for the Michelson-Morley experiment -- Pythagorean theorem done wrong again.

And Boscovich's theory -- well that is unified Pythagorean physics theory.

Thanks for your interest
Roger

Well, T. L; I happily introduce you to the published list of this Pro-Relativity author who seems no longer with us:

Dr. Adrian Sfarti:
Added Feb 1, 2005: The Age of the Earth - Radioactive Decay-Based Determination
Added Jan 5, 2005: Revisionism in Relativity - The Aether Comeback
Added Jan 5, 2005: The Trouton Rankine Experiment and the End of the FitzGerald Contraction
Added Dec. 31, 2005: The Relativistic Doppler Effect and its Measurement
Added Dec. 7, 2005: The Symmetrical Length Contraction Demystified
Added Dec. 2, 2005: Justification for High Speed Reenactments of the Ives-Stilwell Experiment
Added Nov. 4, 2005: The Twins Paradox - Demystified
Added Oct. 24, 2005: Experimental Test for SRT: Part 3
Added Oct. 23, 2005: Experimental Test for SRT: Part 2
Added Oct. 11, 2005: The Pound-Rebka-Snider Experiment
Added Sep. 3, 2005: Superluminal Physics
Added Aug. 24, 2005: Experimental Test Theories for STR: Part 1
Added Jul. 2, 2005: The Ives-Stilwell Experiment: STR vs the Emission Theory
Added Jun. 30, 2005: STR Test Theories
Added Jun. 19, 2005: Fizeau: The STR Interpretation vs non-STR Interpretation



So enjoy them and take the time to leaf through all of them and get enlightened!

***And Boscovich's theory -- well that is unified Pythagorean physics theory.***

This is a very interesting thought. Besides, I have read most of your here published articles and I have to admit that those reflects some of my early studies and readings of Boskovic, especially his main treatise Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, or Nature explained by One an Unique Force Law.

That force idea, its geometrical shape, i.e. r-dependence was the root of R. Boskovic genial intuition. In fact, his main attempt was to wedding Newton Universal Force idea with Leibnitz Monadologie.

Also, I have to point put, somewhat opposing some of your conclusions, the modern QFT concepts and general geometrization idea based on SR/GR itself, are not on the Boskovics way at all. More on that way, from different reasons, were two outstanding geniuses N. Tesla and O. Heaviside in the beginning of the XX century.

Or put it differently, the concluding statement of yours

***So the History of 20th Century physics is -- make a maths mistake create a new theory that does not quite work, then add another maths mistake to make it work a bit better, then add another maths mistake and so on--- i.e. keep building on maths mistakes.***

is somewhat misleading because what you think that were maths mistakes in fact are lucid attempts in a constant effort to hide the basic, system error burred deep under the roots of the entire paradigm.

Not to a small degree, all that is very similar, speaking symbolically, to Ptolemys math-cosmic picture.


Best regards

Turanyanin : This is a very interesting thought. Besides, I have read most of your here published articles and I have to admit that those reflects some of my early studies and readings of Boskovic, especially his main treatise Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, or Nature explained by One an Unique Force Law.


- Thankyou for reading my articles. What depth have you gone with Boscovich? Are you aware of those working with Einstein on Boscovich's theory and the Symposiums held on him?



Turanyanin: That force idea, its geometrical shape, i.e. r-dependence was the root of R. Boskovic genial intuition. In fact, his main attempt was to wedding Newton Universal Force idea with Leibnitz Monadologie.

-Yes, a large part of it.


Turanyanin: Also, I have to point put, somewhat opposing some of your conclusions, the modern QFT concepts and general geometrization idea based on SR/GR itself, are not on the Boskovics way at all. More on that way, from different reasons, were two outstanding geniuses N. Tesla and O. Heaviside in the beginning of the XX century.

-I don't know where you get that from. Boscovich's theory is strict Newtonian physics where even Newton himself was not a strict enough Newtonian. Schrodinger's equation was derived from Newtonian physics, and that is the basis of QM (Quantum mechanics); it was given a new philosophic interpretation by Bohr+co called Copenhagen interpretation - that is standard QM. QM did not include special relativity as part of itself, that was added by Dirac+co and became QFT (Quantum field theory). So, QFT starts from Newtonian physics via QM. My point-of-view is that -- Newtonian type interpretation of QM still works. Then on the relativity side -- well that starts from Boscovich stating the idea upon which relativity is based; and there are two versions of relativity -- Einstein's and Galileo's. I say both work.


Turanyanin: Or put it differently, the concluding statement of yours
***So the History of 20th Century physics is -- make a maths mistake create a new theory that does not quite work, then add another maths mistake to make it work a bit better, then add another maths mistake and so on--- i.e. keep building on maths mistakes.*** is somewhat misleading because what you think that were maths mistakes in fact are lucid attempts in a constant effort to hide the basic, system error burred deep under the roots of the entire paradigm. Not to a small degree, all that is very similar, speaking symbolically, to Ptolemys math-cosmic picture.


So, what you are talking about is that modern physics is engaged in a process similar to medieval physics; where medieval physics was continuing to try to make its false paradigm work by bodging the maths further and further by a process of adding more and more epicycles. I go along with that.

Roger

With respect to Roger Anderton's comments:
Relativity theory is riddled through with mis-applied mathematics and theoretical and logical boners. One might begin with the first postulate which precludes any possible difference between inertial reference frames and which negates the theory entirely, then commence with the second order equations used to attenuate time and space with the total exclusion of first-order (linear velocity) effects. It is logically impossible to have the former without the latter. This is followed by the implicit simultaneous (c-v and c-v) velocities of the transformation equations that can only apply to radiation and cannot in any way modify mass, space and time. It does in fact, represent the x-axis Doppler effect of classical mechanics. Continuing on this line, it is easy to prove that any attenuation of space and time must take effect on the y axis and not the x. Of course, it involves no change in space and time but is simply the Doppler effect generalized to include other ordinates. Finally, as my, and many other papers show, there is absolutely nothing in special relativity that cannot be more easily and naturally explained by classical mechanics and electrodynamics.

Walter Babin:

Relativity theory is riddled through with mis-applied mathematics and theoretical and logical boners. One might begin with the first postulate which precludes any possible difference between inertial reference frames and which negates the theory entirely, then commence with the second order equations used to attenuate time and space with the total exclusion of first-order (linear velocity) effects. It is logically impossible to have the former without the latter. This is followed by the implicit simultaneous (c-v and c-v) velocities of the transformation equations that can only apply to radiation and cannot in any way modify mass, space and time. It does in fact, represent the x-axis Doppler effect of classical mechanics. Continuing on this line, it is easy to prove that any attenuation of space and time must take effect on the y axis and not the x. Of course, it involves no change in space and time but is simply the Doppler effect generalized to include other ordinates. Finally, as my, and many other papers show, there is absolutely nothing in special relativity that cannot be more easily and naturally explained by classical mechanics and electrodynamics.


cinci: Special relativity is pretty simple mathematically. You can claim "mis-applied mathematics" and "theroretical and logical boners" to most of you audience because most of them haven't done the mathematics themselves and want to believe you. But I have done the mathematics myself and I'm not so easily convinced. YOu could say I'm like someone from Missouri and you'll have to show me.

The first postualte is simply Galileo's comments on relativity and couldn't possibly negate the theory since the principle is used in the derivation.

As for the claim that first order effects are excluded, the time dilation and length contraction formulas are derived from the Lorentz transformatins which do indeed include first order effects. The idea that the first order effects cancel out of the equations is just a fact of nature. Presuming that they should appear is an a priori assumption by you.

The rest of what you say is too difficult to follow without your mathematics. Perhaps you could give a reference or post some of that here.
***********************************

Cincirob said: "The first postualte (sic) is simply Galileo's comments on relativity and couldn't possibly negate the theory since the principle is used in the derivation."

Curt says: There are several types of "transform" in dealing with Cartesian coordinates. If one intends to merely move the origin within a given map, without changing the relationship of the given points on the map, each point will have new coordinates.

On the other hand, if one has two Cartesian maps, one overlaying the other, so that the points on one are exactly the same as the other, origin and everything, and one then moves one of the maps in relation to the other, in a particular direction, all the points on the map no longer coincide, and while the map is moving, all the respective points represent lines rather than points. If one then transfers the points in a different color to distinguish them, from the new position of the "moved map" back to the "old map" there will be two whole sets of points. Lines drawn between the corresponding points will represent both the "time" and "distance" of each "point" as it moved.

The problem with the "Galilean" transform is that it only considers one "point."

A clarification of my last post:

The said line segments can represent two "times": One is the amount of time the map takes to move to the new position, and the other is the amount of time a light pulse takes to travel from one point to the other. (a light pulse cannot be seen from where it was emitted, after it leave the point of emission. In other words: The light pulse can only be seen as it approaches the receptor.)

Cincirob said: "The first postualte (sic) is simply Galileo's comments on relativity and couldn't possibly negate the theory since the principle is used in the derivation."

Curt says: There are several types of "transform" in dealing with Cartesian coordinates. If one intends to merely move the origin within a given map, without changing the relationship of the given points on the map, each point will have new coordinates.

On the other hand, if one has two Cartesian maps, one overlaying the other, so that the points on one are exactly the same as the other, origin and everything, and one then moves one of the maps in relation to the other, in a particular direction, all the points on the map no longer coincide, and while the map is moving, all the respective points represent lines rather than points. If one then transfers the points in a different color to distinguish them, from the new position of the "moved map" back to the "old map" there will be two whole sets of points. Lines drawn between the corresponding points will represent both the "time" and "distance" of each "point" as it moved.

The problem with the "Galilean" transform is that it only considers one "point."


cinci: Cince says: I wonder why Curt said all that. The comment about Galileo was that he observed that a person travelling in a ship on smooth water could tell that he was moving; that is, experiments involving the laws of mechanics would not reveal the ship's motion.
*****************************

Cincirob said: "I wonder why Curt said all that. The comment about Galileo was that he observed that a person travelling (sic) in a ship on smooth water could tell that he was moving; that is, experiments involving the laws of mechanics would not reveal the ship's motion."

Curt says: Cincirob cannot even get the quote right. It contradicts itself. The Galilean transform is used by Albert and all the physics books as the starting point for Special Relativity. The fact that they all speak about a transform of a point to a point instead of a point to a line, means there is basic misunderstanding from the start. You and Max suffer from a basic lack of understanding of the definition of a frame, and its use in explaining the difference between the motion of matter and the motion of light.

Curt: Cincirob said: "I wonder why Curt said all that. The comment about Galileo was that he observed that a person travelling (sic) in a ship on smooth water could tell that he was moving; that is, experiments involving the laws of mechanics would not reveal the ship's motion."

Curt says: Cincirob cannot even get the quote right. It contradicts itself. The Galilean transform is used by Albert and all the physics books as the starting point for Special Relativity. The fact that they all speak about a transform of a point to a point instead of a point to a line, means there is basic misunderstanding from the start. You and Max suffer from a basic lack of understanding of the definition of a frame, and its use in explaining the difference between the motion of matter and the motion of light.


cinci: Here's my comment: "The first postulate is simply Galileo's comments on relativity and couldn't possibly negate the theory since the principle is used in the derivation."

This has nothing to do with the Galilean transformations which, by the way, Galileo probably never heard of or commented on. It has to do, as it clearly states, with his comments on relativity which is the ship-on-the-water idea.
***************************************

Yeah, right, Cincirob, the ship on the water is all there is. Your fly is down, too bad that it doesn't matter.

Curt: Yeah, right, Cincirob, the ship on the water is all there is. Your fly is down, too bad that it doesn't matter.


cvinci: Gee, and you were the only one who noticed.
***********************

Wrong, I was the only one to comment. Sorry it didn't save you from embarrassment.

We seem to have come to the end of a thread; diverted from the topic.

So, starting again with the original post:



Boscovich's theory





The scenario as I have found it historically --

*Einstein appears to have sub-contracted his maths out to other people; he was never any good himself at maths. So, the maths that comes from him is a mix of different maths mistakes.

* Although we commonly led to believe that Einstein overthrew Newtonian physics in 1919 -- really the completed version of physics came in the mid-18th century after Newton's death, when the Royal Society agreed that the completed version of Newton's theory was Boscovich's theory. Boscovich's theory was then known thereafter as Newtonian theory. i.e. there was too versions of Newtonian theory -- (1) the uncompleted version as left by Newton and (2) the Boscovich version. This FACT gets lost.

*The maths of Special relativity has mistakes in it. Newtonian theory is still able to deal with the MM experiment -- that is the Boscovich version of Newtonian theory with its Galilean relativity.

*A lot of people get diverted into attacking relativity in general; claiming all relativity wrong. But pre-Einstein there was an existing relativity theory that of Galileo.

*The Einstein crowd do their maths wrong for Special Relativity, then they have difficulty dealing with gravity/acceleration because of doing it wrong. They then have to add another mistake to change the theory from Special Relativity to General relativity, so as to get the desired agreement vwith experiment.

When the Einstein crowd did the maths for light bending within the context of Newtonian theory, they do the maths wrong again.

So-- the sceanrio is just of doing the maths wrong, not correcting the maths and adding more mistakes to Einstein's theory to get it to work.

While the existing theory pre-Einstein was just misrepresented by the Einstein crowd as they did the maths wrong within that context; and do the maths correctly and "it" still works.


So the History of 20th Century physics is -- make a maths mistake create a new theory that does not quite work, then add another maths mistake to make it work a bit better, then add another maths mistake and so on--- i.e. keep building on maths mistakes.

regards
Roger

In my opinion, The whole subject has been needlessly obfuscated, to make it seem that only adepts like the high profile Professors and "Theoretical Physicists" can understand the subject. I watched a video link that was posted on this forum. A Stanford "professor" was holding forth. Towards the end of his lecture, I could see that he was putting himself to sleep. The camera didn't pan his students, but I bet they were asleep long before.

So, I agree with you.

Roger Anderto: The scenario as I have found it historically --

*Einstein appears to have sub-contracted his maths out to other people; he was never any good himself at maths. So, the maths that comes from him is a mix of different maths mistakes.

cinci: It is a fiction that he wasn't good at math.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html

One widely held belief about Einstein is that he failed math as a student, an assertion that is made, often accompanied by the phrase as everyone knows, by scores of books and thousands of websites designed to reassure underachieving students. A Google search of Einstein failed math turns up more than 500,000 references. The allegation even made it into the famous Ripleys Believe it or Not! newspaper column.

Alas, Einsteins childhood offers history many savory ironies, but this is not one of them. In 1935, a rabbi in Princeton showed him a clipping of the Ripleys column with the headline Greatest living mathematician failed in mathematics. Einstein laughed. I never failed in mathematics, he replied, correctly. Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus. In primary school, he was at the top of his class and far above the school requirements in math. By age 12, his sister recalled, he already had a predilection for solving complicated problems in applied arithmetic, and he decided to see if he could jump ahead by learning geometry and algebra on his own. His parents bought him the textbooks in advance so that he could master them over summer vacation. Not only did he learn the proofs in the books, he also tackled the new theories by trying to prove them on his own. He even came up on his own with a way to prove the Pythagorean theory.
***********************************


Roger: * Although we commonly led to believe that Einstein overthrew Newtonian physics in 1919 -- really the completed version of physics came in the mid-18th century after Newton's death, when the Royal Society agreed that the completed version of Newton's theory was Boscovich's theory. Boscovich's theory was then known thereafter as Newtonian theory. i.e. there was too versions of Newtonian theory -- (1) the uncompleted version as left by Newton and (2) the Boscovich version. This FACT gets lost.

cinci: OK, so he overthrew Boscovich's theory. You seem to be choosy about your myths. You don't believe the myth that the laws of mechanics an gravity were Newton's, but you do believe the myth that Eisntein wasn't good at math.
******************************

Roger: *The maths of Special relativity has mistakes in it. Newtonian theory is still able to deal with the MM experiment -- that is the Boscovich version of Newtonian theory with its Galilean relativity.

cinci: Two questions:

(1) What are the mistakes in SR?

(2) How does Boscovich's version of the theory deal with MMX and why didn't the leading physicists of the day, Michelson, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Heaviside and others figure it out?
************************************


Roger: *A lot of people get diverted into attacking relativity in general; claiming all relativity wrong. But pre-Einstein there was an existing relativity theory that of Galileo.

cinci: There was only the idea that if you were travelling in a closed cabin on a ship sailing smootly at a constant speed, that you couldn't do any mechanical experiments that would tell you you were moving. These ideas were not thought to be applied to light since Galileo had no good theory about light. Einstein's work extended Galileo's relativity to include light.
*************************


Roger: *The Einstein crowd do their maths wrong for Special Relativity, then they have difficulty dealing with gravity/acceleration because of doing it wrong. They then have to add another mistake to change the theory from Special Relativity to General relativity, so as to get the desired agreement with experiment.

cinci: The math isn't wrong in SR and there is no difficulty dealing with acceleration. The effects of gravity are specifically excluded from SR and cannot be dealt with using SR. GR was developed specifically to deal with gravity, which it does with great success.
*****************************

Roger: When the Einstein crowd did the maths for light bending within the context of Newtonian theory, they do the maths wrong again.

cinci: So you say, but then you don't think it's Newton's theory anyway.
***********************************

Roger: So-- the sceanrio is just of doing the maths wrong, not correcting the maths and adding more mistakes to Einstein's theory to get it to work.

cinci: SR works just fine and exactly as derived in the very first paper on it in 1905.
****************************************

Roger: While the existing theory pre-Einstein was just misrepresented by the Einstein crowd as they did the maths wrong within that context; and do the maths correctly and "it" still works.

cinci: No, it doesn't. And if you think it does, then where are all these wonderful maths. Do we just have to take your word for it?
******************************


Roger: So the History of 20th Century physics is -- make a maths mistake create a new theory that does not quite work, then add another maths mistake to make it work a bit better, then add another maths mistake and so on--- i.e. keep building on maths mistakes.

cinci: You have presented nothing here but your excruciatingly biased opinions. Here's my opinion of your ideas: Nonsense!
*******************************

Here is my opinion of Roger's idea: Right on, baby!

Here is my opinion of your opinion, Cincirob: Phooey!

He showed the problem, believers can't see it.

The operation of modern physics is: never admit that your wrong, just obfuscate the issue until the opposition falters then point fingers. Invent some new particle or property of space to make your theory appear plausible. Coerce the math to match it.

Curt: Here is my opinion of Roger's idea: Right on, baby!

Here is my opinion of your opinion, Cincirob: Phooey!

He showed the problem, believers can't see it.


cinci: He didn't show anything. He just SAID a bunch of stuff without any supporting evidence whatever.
********************************

Curt: The operation of modern physics is: never admit that your wrong, just obfuscate the issue until the opposition falters then point fingers. Invent some new particle or property of space to make your theory appear plausible. Coerce the math to match it.


cinci: Who is this "opposition"? Find out where they're holding a symposium on some aspect of physics and you may find all kinds of disagreement. Nobody discourages it; it's critiques that make them get better. But valid critiques can't be the kind of trash talk Roger offers. These guys will come with alternative theories and they'll spell out mathematical errors.

If you study the history of the MMX, you'll find that Michelson's first attempt to analyze it was wrong, somebody pointed it out, and he corrected it. The anti-relativists believe in some dream world where a few scientists rule everybody else and command them to silence if they disagree. That world does not exist. Read Lee Smolin's book. Read about the early quantum mechanics conference where somebody stood up at the end of a presentation and said "We all agree that your ideas are crazy; we just don't know if they are crazy enough. Read about how Eddington bomed Chandrasehkar's idea about a limit on the size of white dwarf stars. Read about the bets that Stephen Hawking has made with others about certain ideas in physics. Read about the Bohr-Einstein debates on quantum mechanics. Physics is full of disagreements. But if you want to just go around SAYING "Relativity is wrong and everybody knows it." then you will and should be ignored by the physics community.
**************************************

Einstein's first wife, Elva, "corrected" his Special Relativity paper, and is usually never given credit. Both you and he hold a contradiction to be true. By labeling it a paradox does not change the contradiction.

Curt Youngs : Einstein's first wife, Elva,

Ted: That was not her name, dumbo.


CY: "corrected" his Special Relativity paper,

Ted: which one of his papers? do you have proof?


CY: and is usually never given credit.

Ted: do you have proof,dumbotron?

Ted: Do you have proof,dumbotron?



Curt: Yes, dumbotron!

Are you the brother of Iggymax? He cannot post without an ad hominem remark, either, so drop the stupid vindictiveness. The proof is out there, go look for it.

Curt Youngs : The proof is out there, go look for it.

Ted: So, you have no proof, dumbotron

iggyliggety: So, you have no proof, dumbotron

Curt: So you didn't look. So, you are ignorant, dumbotron.

I looked, you have nothing, dumbo.

Curt>>Start again: Boscovich's theory December 4 2008, 9:19 PM

>>In my opinion, The whole subject has been needlessly obfuscated, to make it seem that only adepts like the high profile Professors and "Theoretical Physicists" can understand the subject. I watched a video link that was posted on this forum. A Stanford "professor" was holding forth. Towards the end of his lecture, I could see that he was putting himself to sleep. The camera didn't pan his students, but I bet they were asleep long before.

>>So, I agree with you.

Great thankyou. My latest science paper to be published soon, will show the errors made in derivation of time dilation. Instead of correcting such errors, the obfuscators add more to them.
Roger

cinci: It is a fiction that he {Einstein] wasn't good at math.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html

One widely held belief about Einstein is that he failed math as a student, an assertion that is made, often accompanied by the phrase as everyone knows, by scores of books and thousands of websites designed to reassure underachieving students. A Google search of Einstein failed math turns up more than 500,000 references. The allegation even made it into the famous Ripleys Believe it or Not! newspaper column.


Roger: Einstein may have believed that he was good at maths as that link claims he did, but as those 500,000 references show he was mistaken. Taking one of those links - Einstein bad at maths here is:


-(n.b. Ohanian, the author of physics textbooks and a former associate editor of the American Journal of Physics.)

-We have all heard that math wasn't Einstein's strong point, and Ohanian ruthlessly lays out the details. A 12-page marathon calculation in Einstein's doctoral dissertation, "A New Determination of the Molecular Size," was "a comedy of errors" based on "zany" physical assumptions, such as treating sugar molecules dissolved in water as though they were tiny spheres sitting at rest instead of spinning like tops.

http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-ca-hans-ohanian12-2008oct12,0,2289223.story

So, if you are going to ignore all the evidence, and believe "a comedy of errors" then its your choice.
Roger

cinci: It is a fiction that he {Einstein] wasn't good at math.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html

One widely held belief about Einstein is that he failed math as a student, an assertion that is made, often accompanied by the phrase as everyone knows, by scores of books and thousands of websites designed to reassure underachieving students. A Google search of Einstein failed math turns up more than 500,000 references. The allegation even made it into the famous Ripleys Believe it or Not! newspaper column.


Roger: Einstein may have believed that he was good at maths as that link claims he did, but as those 500,000 references show he was mistaken. Taking one of those links - Einstein bad at maths here is:

-(n.b. Ohanian, the author of physics textbooks and a former associate editor of the American Journal of Physics.)

-We have all heard that math wasn't Einstein's strong point, and Ohanian ruthlessly lays out the details. A 12-page marathon calculation in Einstein's doctoral dissertation, "A New Determination of the Molecular Size," was "a comedy of errors" based on "zany" physical assumptions, such as treating sugar molecules dissolved in water as though they were tiny spheres sitting at rest instead of spinning like tops.

http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-ca-hans-ohanian12-2008oct12,0,2289223.story

So, if you are going to ignore all the evidence, and believe "a comedy of errors" then its your choice.

cinci: What is "all the evidence". He mastered a lot of math in his teens that most don't get around to until graduate studies. That's fact.

Did he struggle with the mathematics of general relativity, perhaps some of the most difficult mathematics to use? And maybe this was the first practcal use for that branch of mathematics which makes what he did pretty spectacular....but he finished the theory and it is correct. After hearing Einstein describe his ideas about where he was going to go with general relativity, David Hilbert, a recognized genius in mathematics, tried and actually succeeded in developing the theory...but he couldn't beat Einstein to the finish.

Nobody claims that Einstein was mathematician which is a very different discipline from theoretical physics. And nobody claims he didn't make any mistakes.

Here is one of Ohanian's critiques: "The speed of light is either constant or not, and only measurement can decide what it is," Ohanian writes. For Einstein to make a postulation rather than propose it as a hypothesis to be tested may seem like a fine distinction. (Earlier in his book, Einstein does cite an empirical basis for his assumption: the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter's paper, "An Astronomical Proof for the Constancy of the Speed of Light," which was based on observations of binary stars.) But to Ohanian, the act was as outrageous as when Indiana lawmakers tried to legislate the value for pi. And so he adds it to his roster of Einstein's mistakes.

cinci: He ignores here that many experiments had been made by 1905 and Einsstein interpretted them to imply the constancy of the speed of light. The fact that Ohanian couldn't see it doesn't make Einsntein wrong. The success of Eisntein's theory to make valid predictions based on that postulate show that Albert got it right.

Here's a comment from Ohanian: "Most important, Ohanian notes, Einstein's instincts were dead on. Light is made of photons. Mass is equivalent to energy. Space-time is curved. Nothing can exceed the speed of light. Einstein, Ohanian writes, had "a mystical intuitive approach to physics" that led him to the right answers -- if not always by the right path." Could be that Hans was just a little jealous.
***************************

cinci: Did he struggle with the mathematics of general relativity, perhaps some of the most difficult mathematics to use?

Yes he did, about 10 years I think of effort to get general relativity (1915) from when he got special relativity (1905).

cinci:Nobody claims that Einstein was mathematician which is a very different discipline from theoretical physics. And nobody claims he didn't make any mistakes.

Exactly, he was bad at maths.


cinci: He ignores here that many experiments had been made by 1905 and Einsstein interpretted them to imply the constancy of the speed of light. The fact that Ohanian couldn't see it doesn't make Einsntein wrong.

Ah, you seemed to have not digested what was said by the article: "For Einstein to make a postulation rather than propose it as a hypothesis to be tested may seem like a fine distinction." - so its splitting hairs on that.


cinci: Could be that Hans was just a little jealous.

Now you are just getting petty.

cinci: Did he struggle with the mathematics of general relativity, perhaps some of the most difficult mathematics to use?

Roger: Yes he did, about 10 years I think of effort to get general relativity (1915) from when he got special relativity (1905).

cinci: So you think the only difficulty with developing a whole new theory of gravity was because Einstein wasn't good at math. In fact he had to learn a lot of math hew wasn't familiar with when he started. Riemannian geometry isn't something that everybody learns. To learn to use it at all means you're pretty good at math.
****************************

cinci: Nobody claims that Einstein was mathematician which is a very different discipline from theoretical physics. And nobody claims he didn't make any mistakes.

Roger: Exactly, he was bad at maths.

cinci: You have no case.
**************************

cinci: He ignores here that many experiments had been made by 1905 and Einsstein interpretted them to imply the constancy of the speed of light. The fact that Ohanian couldn't see it doesn't make Einsntein wrong.

Roger: Ah, you seemed to have not digested what was said by the article: "For Einstein to make a postulation rather than propose it as a hypothesis to be tested may seem like a fine distinction." - so its splitting hairs on that.

cinci: I digested it. Ohanian was splitting hairs. If he had a strong case, he wouldn't have to do that.
*********************

cinci: Could be that Hans was just a little jealous.

Roger: Now you are just getting petty.

cinci: The quesiton is: Was Ohanian was just getting petty?
*********************

cinci: So you think the only difficulty with developing a whole new theory of gravity was because Einstein wasn't good at math. In fact he had to learn a lot of math hew wasn't familiar with when he started. Riemannian geometry isn't something that everybody learns. To learn to use it at all means you're pretty good at math.

Roger: nothing to do with what was being talked about.
****************************

cinci: I digested it. Ohanian was splitting hairs. If he had a strong case, he wouldn't have to do that.


Roger: You picked up on an minor issue that was splitting hairs, and missed the main point of the article.


*********************

cinci: The quesiton is: Was Ohanian was just getting petty?

Roger: If you had bothered to read the article, then you would have read that Ohanian has fully documented some of the errors made by Einstein.

*********************

Roger, if you had "bothered" to read Cincirob, you would know that Einstein cannot make mistakes. He is the Pope. (Who? Einstein, or Cincirob?)

Roger, Cinci is famous for thinking "nit picks" are a answer to real problems. He gives answers like "a relativist would not say that," then never states what a relativist would say in response!

Take it as a concession on his part, Roger.

Curt: Roger, Cinci is famous for thinking "nit picks" are a answer to real problems. He gives answers like "a relativist would not say that," then never states what a relativist would say in response!
Take it as a concession on his part, Roger.
.
Ok, thankyou. If Cinci was a nitpicker then he should have liked the article on Ohanian who sounds another nitpicker.

Cincirob said: "I digested it. Ohanian was splitting hairs. If he had a strong case, he wouldn't have to do that."

Curt says: Cincirob, if you digested it you have a hair ball in your gut, probably it is interfering with your logic.