originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
Except Einstein is proven right . . .
As far as the simple equation concerning how to measure energy, okay. As far as the true nature of Reality, Einstein was never proven to be right,
since there is no experiment or experimental prediction that can prove a theory as inherently finite as his Special Relativity Theory to be applicable
to something as sweeping as the macro-system that Reality obviously is.
I had a very interesting exchange with a "Death Cafe"
moderator a month and some ago, concerning the relative
nature of Reality. His contention was that Reality is 100% "owned" by the observer, and my contention was that there is a specific and
observer-immune Reality matrix that (while constantly developing with each "quantum of Now")
is not at all affected (as a whole)
the observations - or lack-there-of - of any or many unique frames of reference.
I actually had my Kindle with me and debunked the basis of Einstein's Special Theory or Relativity (and with it, his General theory of Relativity,
since that theory is based on the former and cannot survive without its fundamental tenets remaining intact)
with only 4 diagrams that I had
already tossed together with PowerPoint for an essay concerning the existence of a "fundamental real" I'd been working on.
Here's the account of how I debunked the Time Dilation assertion of Special Relativity with 4
- mods, note that there is nothing for sale or linked to sale on that blog page or that entire suite of entries. The blog only
exists to publicly share what I've learned as a result of my own research and education concerning communication between incarnate and discarnate
I actually have gotten the nagging impression that Einstein knew that his Relativity theories couldn't be used to describe the entire Universe
(Reality, as it were)
but that he'd allowed the scientific community of his day to go wild with all of it to simply see just how absurd the
whole thing might get. That his "bending starlight" prediction was proven true was likely as much a shock to him as it was to anyone else, but there
is at least one very responsible theoretical explanation for that "bended light" indication, and it deals with the same sort of heat radiation
effect that causes mirage images in the desert (which are basically photon flights bending in the same manner over an extremely hot surface - like
the sun in Einstein's own "curved spacetime" prediction)
I've begun to suspect that his Relativity theories began as ingenious satire over the dogged adherence to Bacon's "scientific empiricism" that
ruled his day and still holds sway over "serious science" even today. Like an absurdist legal argument that slightly alters a premise within a pile
of premises enough to force a conclusion that could never be true otherwise. His pair of premises being that (one)
the observer's frame of
reference is always to be considered achieved from a stationary position, and that (two)
there is a factual (and not simply empirical)
equivalence between gravity and acceleration. Both assertions based solely on the empirical observation of the conscious observer and based on nothing
else whatsoever, and then inductively expanded to impose the ramifications of these profound assertions to reconfigure Reality as a whole from each
and every competing frame of reference that exists (as if that's something that could ever happen or be allowed to happen if Reality itself were
to be survivable for more than an instant)
Einstein's Relativity theories seem to almost mock the basis of the empirically dominant "scientific method" that ruled his world, and he even
slips in the 19th century "aether pressure gravity theory" while renaming it "curved spacetime" as almost an attempt to push the whole thing a
bit too far, to see if he can test its limits. And he brilliantly does so by presenting all of it in the most convoluted manner, with thought
experiments (which have the same effect as twisting premise analogies into confusing narratives that lead the listener away from were they should
be focused and toward where the story teller wants them to be focused)
. Basically, the ball and cups game but with easy to visualize vignettes
involving men on trains and men in elevators and large heavy spheres rolling around on tightly drawn sheets.
Einstein was definitely a genius, but perhaps not a scientific genius. Perhaps he was actually trying to teach his colleagues about something much
more important than the relative nature of physical reality? Perhaps he was trying to teach those brilliant minds to use critical thinking, but they
never figured it out, so he laughed and let the whole world revere him as a scientific genius if that's what it wanted to do. Hell, why not? If his
colleagues were going to refuse to see through his gentle absurdist rebuke, then why not let them and be hailed as a great scientific hero by the rest
of the world?
That his gravity-time dilation prediction works is just the impossible-to-correct-for impact of changes in relative gravity well placement on the
hyper-sensitive system fluctuations of a caesium 133 oscillator, and not much more than that, is yet another "happy surprise" for Einstein and his
Relativity theories. The guy's entire reality reconstruction is based on a relative handful of tenuous experimental observations, while flying
directly in the face of layers and layers of reliable and structural physical consistency that simply could never exist if what he asserts is true.
It's actually not all that complicated, but our modern world declared him to be this transformational genius without ever even bothering to really
look at (or try to understand)
what his theories were actually based on.