singularity

OK, boyz, enough is enough! Einstein considered all the matter as being the "elecrodynamic" substance, so that no force other than EM holds that piece of whatsoever matter together. Guess what - he was wrong all along! Upon that very premise, he's put the preferred ref frame at the "photon wavefront" (the "photons" being emitted by the preffered "body", etc... all the hierarchal system being there) without ever acknowledging that very fact. Was that a malicious lie or utter stupidity - you choose. Get it along with the consequences already! Sober up or stay under that beloved medication forever and ever! (Sorry for being rude - I'm afraid my lifetime is not enough to kill the lies instilled by Einstein's theories.

> [AB]: I'm afraid my lifetime is not enough to kill the lies instilled by Einstein's theories.

The theories thenselves have been successful at predicting phenomena, even if the interpretations of those theories have gone wild in the hands of lesser intellects since Einstein. The whole "gravity is just geometry" thing is a good example of a bad interpretation of a working mathematical model, and Einstein himself seemed to steer clear of it, or at best treat it as equivalent to the "force" interpretation. Don't forget that Einstein was no fan of "black holes" either, and made some good arguments against the possibility of their existence in his writings.

A lot of what Meta science does is to restore sanity to lots of models by showing how they can be reinterpreted in ways consistent with experiments, observations, physical principles, and logic. -|Tom|-

Tom,

While you express perfectly valid points wrt Einstein and his theories, I would still insist that those theories are a major obstacle to physical science and technology progress. I deeply respect your attempt at amending our errant physics with the Meta Model. Yet I'd like to point out the palliative nature of your attempts.
I see problems lying much deeper in the very basic concepts of physics. Consider the concept of "inertial mass" - is it a real basic property of matter or just a simple induced effect? It's rather the latter... Let me illustrate my point:
Imagine a rigid rod you push or pull at one end (no relativistic effects involved) - the other end knows of your action not earlier than L(length)/C(speed of sound), thus accelerated motion always deforms the matter in the direction of force applied, as the other end is always late to know of the action by not less than (L/C). Hence the linear deformation has to be something like (a(L/C)²)/2, (a) stands for acceleration. The reaction force to this deformation obviously has to be proportional to this deformation and to crossection (S) of the rod and inversely proportional to the length (L) of the rod. Hence force F~aLS/C². So the "inertial mass" turns out to be proportional to the volume of the object, as it truly is. Whatever the speed of sound C in that rod is, it’s less than c; so every kind of matter made with electrodynamic (chemical) bonds exhibits the property of “inertial mass”.
Given the simplicity of this example, can you believe Newton didn’t know of such an interpretation? Imagine the physics free of the concept of inertial mass - it was and still is quite possible.

> [AB]: I would still insist that those theories are a major obstacle to physical science and technology progress.

Perhaps we might agree that Einstein's theories have been a mixed blessing. I'd hate to be still stuck with Newtonian gravity at this date.

> Imagine the physics free of the concept of inertial mass - it was and still is quite possible.

While I agree that the concept of "inertia" has been badly abused, and the "equivalence principle" is a step backwards in terms of understanding, I cannot go as far as you do. If a mass has density high enough, its gravitational force may no longer represent its total matter content because of gravitational shielding. By contrast, the resistance to acceleration when a non-gravitational external force is applied surely is proportional to its total matter content. Hence, an indefinitely large difference between gravitational and inertial mass could develop.

Another part of our difference is philosophical. Kuhn argued convincingly that science never admits error or reverses course to correct a mistake. Instead, it always assimilates the new information in such a way as to maintain the illusion of forward progress. So even if I believed that Einstein's theories were "a major obstacle to physical science and technology progress", I know that I would have to pretend otherwise and just redirect the path of progress through a series of new discoveries. Those who insist upon knocking down a whole edifice are isolated and neutralized by the mainstream of science, first by attacks and then by shunning. It's rare they even get a foornote in a history book.

I know it's frustrating. But I wasn't consulted when somebody made the rules we must all operate under. -|Tom|-

[Tom]…So even if I believed that Einstein's theories were "a major obstacle to physical science and technology progress", I know that I would have to pretend otherwise and just redirect the path of progress through a series of new discoveries. Those who insist upon knocking down a whole edifice are isolated and neutralized by the mainstream of science, first by attacks and then by shunning. It's rare they even get a footnote in a history book.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. If Halton Arp, for example, were to accept the Big Bang theory, and that redshifts are caused by an expanding universe, how could he "redirect the path of progress" to get his colleagues to accept his radically different theory, based on mounting evidence, of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies? No, sometimes you have to go for broke, even if it means seeming to stand alone for awhile. Sometimes, you may be surprised to find allies where you least expect them.

If someone is competent to challenge Einstein, as for example, Beckmann's challenge to Special Relativity, they should make the attempt and let the cards fall where they may. Otherwise science will stagnate. Of course, one should pick one's battles and not flail away at wind mills. Neil

> [Neil]: If Halton Arp, for example, were to accept the Big Bang theory, and that redshifts are caused by an expanding universe, how could he "redirect the path of progress" to get his colleagues to accept his radically different theory, based on mounting evidence, of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies? No, sometimes you have to go for broke, even if it means seeming to stand alone for awhile. Sometimes, you may be surprised to find allies where you least expect them.

I admire what Arp has done, and have to some degree followed his example myself. But we all learn the rules and true costs as we go along. It can be argued that "isolated and neutralized by the mainstream" describes Arp's present status. If he had stayed in California and kept his access to the big telescopes and continued making major discoveries (which would have required making some major compromises), might the field be closer today to a paradigm shift? It's a tough call.

Ultimately, some of us are too impatient to play the game by the rules, so we seek to change the rulebook. For example, the Internet allows a certain amount of by-passing of mainstream-controlled journals and media. We have no historical precedents for the present situation.

My best guess is that the paradigm shifts will come, probably from some unexpected new observation more than from the efforts of people now alive. (The softening of people's stances about the possibility of change before the shift comes is rarely credited in history.) But because the mainstream will never yield control even in a paradigm shift, and for the most part they write the history books, the struggles of these times and the people pushing hardest for reform are not likely to ever be credited for their efforts. How often do you hear the names of the reformers of past eras in a positive light?

> [Neil]: If someone is competent to challenge Einstein, as for example, Beckmann's challenge to Special Relativity, they should make the attempt and let the cards fall where they may. Otherwise science will stagnate. Of course, one should pick one's battles and not flail away at wind mills.

Beckmann is a good example. He was mostly right and influenced a lot of people. But barely a decade after his death, he is remembered by the few mainstreamers who know his name at all as an eccentric who made some serious errors (which is true, but irrelevant; even Einstein made some big blunders).

A development along these lines will happen within the next few months, so stay tuned and watch what happens. I guess my message to AB was "the softer one can make a change appear, the more palatable and less feared and resisted it will be." Saying "Einstein's theories are a major obstacle to physical science and technology progress" is just going to get the speaker outfitted for cement boots, with another opportunity for progress lost. But pulling at an apparently superficial thread can appear innocent enough and an effort to just tidy up the tapestry, but can lead to its complete unraveling if the thread happens to be critical to holding all the other threads together.

For example, what if gravity did travel faster-than-light in forward time ...?! <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-