dragonrider said:
Including the ideas that got him his first nobelprize?
Yes. His photoelectric effect is based on the assumption that light is or has discrete energy packet (particle) type properties. Whilst it is useful for explaining things and can make maths fit, can help us make sense of things, at its root it is an intellectual concept not a reality. The photoelectric effect is a real mechanism, photons are an imaginary concoction.
Exitwound said:
Just curious: how would you describe your level of education in Physics?
I wouldn't be able to pass any of the exams I had to sit back in secondary school, and not just physics haha. The high level mathematics I don't understand as I didn't take that or a university degree requiring it.
But I understand enough and have enough intelligence to wrap my head around physics concepts, providing the concepts can be communicated without that high level mathematics.
All physics concepts should be decipherable without having to resort to mathematical cloaking. If it can't be explained simply then it is most probably horseshit.
When it comes to Einstein's postulations the condensed concepts absolutely defy logic and common sense.
Exitwound said:
You are benefitting from his and other madmen's mathematical ramblings daily, by using computer, cell phone and other amazing things, don't be so harsh on old Albert
Rubbish. Einstein didn't actually invent or discover anything. All he did was speculate mathematically. Anyone can fucking speculate without having to demonstrably prove anything, just because he cloaked his metaphysical speculations in mathematics that are beyond the average mans intelligence doesn't make him a genius at all. Especially when it's obvious he was wrong about so much, which is unsurprising given he didn't actually do any fucking experiments or empirical research!
The reverence of Einstein is nothing more than cult behavior and completely unjustified. Ironically it is advocates of Nikola Tesla who get labelled as cult followers. Yet, it was Tesla who gave birth to the modern world we enjoy today thanks to his AC inventions that made powerful industry and widespread electricity possible, without which we would not have the technologies you mentioned because there would be no foundation on which to build the enterprises that gave birth to those technologies!
If you're going to pick a champion, pick the justified one for christ sake. Tesla's inventing record is unsurpassed and that's only taking into account the publicly available patents and inventions, and not including the technology that the US government buried when they seized all his materials at his death.
Einstein's work is a 'best fit'. But that doesn't mean much really if it's not actually connected to reality, to the actual truth of how things are. And no man has ever reached truth by speculation alone, it has
always required experimentation and effort.
dragonrider said:
Sagnacs experiment does not contradict relativity. Relativity predicts the exact same outcome.
Sagnacs experiment is in relation to special relativity, not general relativity; specifically how light operates. I hadn't heard of the experiment until the other day in fact. Unsurprising really because it took all of 10 seconds to look at it and see it absolutely destroys Einstein's postulations about light, so it's no wonder why I wasn't taught about it, why it is not often mentioned and has been dubbed an mere 'effect' when in actuality it demonstrates special relativity is incorrect.
I've spent the last couple of days reading all I can find about it and the justification (excuse) for why it doesn't disprove SR is the proponents basically hinge their devotion to SR on an interpretation of inertial frames of reference;
All of it hinges back to the chief neurosis of science really, which goes right back to Newton's work too, which is that you can dissect a piece of a system in order to comprehend the whole. This is an assumption, a gamble, because it is entirely possible that 'reality' is one dynamic movement. Therefore whilst you can take parts and gain useful understandings it only works up until a point, and that point is when it comes to the universal scale (or atomic scale). Your resolution of insight diminishes and without direct experimentation you are shooting in the dark.
This is exactly what has happened in the 20th century, and it is why both particle physics and cosmology is in crisis. It has speculated itself into a corner and is speaking a deranged fantasy that has no connection to reality anymore. At the largest scale and at the smallest scale, our theories are bereft of logic and rationality. Tesla said it himself at the start of the 20th century. Our science paradigm is now run by mathematicians, not physicists.
dragonrider said:
But from a philosophical point of view, i am really interested to hear where exactly you think Einstein went of the rails. Is it when he came up with relativity, or before that moment?
As I described above, Einstein is a mathematical speculator and not an experimenter or inventor. It's fine to speculate, speculation is healthy. But it should not form the basis of discovery, let alone form the tenet of an entire paradigm of science. Discovery happens through innovation and experimentation..
actual physics.
The encapsulation of light as a particle and his SR theory regarding light were chief points of error in his thinking. The former due to the bias of atomism in his thinking as mentioned above (you can't separate a dynamic motion into parts to discern truth of the whole), the latter due to the simple fact that he didn't do any tangible experiments to probe and test the actuality of things, hence why Sagnac's experiment rubbished SR.
"Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible – But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.” - Nikola Tesla, speaking about Einstein's relativity.
Tesla understood things far better than Einstein, because he experimented directly using physics and not solely with mathematics.