The work of Milan R. Pavlovic about Relativity

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I would like to bring to your attention the work of a Serbian electro-engineer by the name of Milan R. Pavlovic. I did a search on ATS, but could not find his name or work ever mentioned, so I figured I would do him some justice.

Mr. Pavlovic wrote a paper in 1994 entitled "Einstein´s Theory of Relativity: Scientific Theory or Illusion?" He has revised the paper since then, with major revisions in 1997 and 2000.

Now before you stop reading and scream "pseudoscience!", I would like to you continue reading and preferrably read the paper itself. This is not some freak claiming he is in contact with aliens or on a astral plane, but a proper scientist who dares to criticize the mainstream science program and thinks outside the confined "accepted norm."



Milan R. Pavlovic was born in 1931 at the village of Krusevica in Yugoslavia. He graduated from the Electro-technical Faculty of Belgrade University. He spent his working life in the research, development and testing of military equipment in the fields of telecommunications, electrooptic tank and artillery fire control systems, laser and nuclear engineering.


In the paper, Pavlovic takes a critical look at Einstein´s published papers on Relativity and related matter, and analyzes it in detail mathematically as well as theoretically. Even though the paper is quite technical with a lot of mathematics and complex physics involved, it´s still not too hard to follow what he is explaining. He deals with every principle of the Theory of Relativity in turn and shows how it either is flawed mathematically or contradicts another principle of the same theory.

Excerpt from the paper:


This book originated in such circumstances, where I dared to, among other things, take a critical approach to Einstein's treatment of space and time, because they are the base not only of relativity theory but of physics generally. It is suggested, and I hope proved that the explanation of the result of Michelson's measurement with regard to the ether was wrong, that Lorentz hypothesis about the contraction of bodies due to motion through the ether was wrong, that Einstein's hypothesis about the contraction of bodies as a real physical process caused only by motion is wrong too, that Einstein's interpretations of Fizeau's experimental results were wrong, that Einstein's definition and interpretation of the contraction of space and the dilatation of time is wrong, that Einstein's definition and use of his theorem on the addition of speeds is wrong, that the relativistic way of defining the Doppler effect is wrong and that it is hard to maintain Einstein's claim that the velocity of light is the maximum velocity in nature.


Pavlovic is most definitely not the first one to doubt Einstein´s genius and the validity of his work, and he argues that Einstein is glorified in scientific circles against better knowing.

His proofs appear solid and mathematically sound, and may expose the flaws in the reasoning of Einstein, as well as his limited understanding of Lorentz transformations or arguably his improper implementation of them, intentional or not. Furthermore, he explains how E = mc² is not a relativistic but classical formula, well known before Einstein´s time, and how Einstein incorrectly derived this formula using relativity to support his own theories. I think the beauty of this paper lies in the fact that Pavlovic is able to correct Einstein´s formulas and explain all the experiments that were used as an example of proof for relativity without the use of relativity, with better correlating results.

The paper can be found at Pavlovic´s website, but unfortunately only in HTML format.

I invite you to read it first and then comment on it here. I would suggest reading at least the first 20 chapters (they are mostly very short chapters, don´t worry) before you reach any conclusions.
edit on 2/11/2012 by RationalDespair because: Typo
edit on 2/11/2012 by RationalDespair because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Mr. Pavlovic wrote a paper in 1994 entitled "Einstein´s Theory of Relativity: Scientific Theory or Illusion?"

I invite you to read it first and then comment on it here. I would suggest reading at least the first 20 chapters




My first thought was "Special", or "General"?
And why wouldnt he put it in the title of his book which one he was attacking?
(after reading the 'preface', I assume he means "Special", though he doesnt actually say that)

My second thought was that nobody is going to read 20 chapters of a cranks book, no matter how short they are.

My third thought is how something that can be experimentally proven, and used everyday with GPS systems, can be said to be faulty?
edit on 2-11-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


These are exactly the kind of responses I was afraid of.

He indeed means Special, but with that debunked, nothing much of General remains.

If you consider it to be a "cranks book" from the start, then this is not really for you. Science cannot progress in the right direction when alternative ideas are not taken into account anymore and established, controversial theories are no longer subject of scrutiny. This is the main problem in science today, and you are only confirming the mainstream thought.

This is not just any paper without justification or just some random pseudo-science. As I explained in the OP, this is a very well constructed argument against the principles of relativity and it also explains why every "proof" of relativity can also be explained without it, providing the correct mathematics, not just claiming so.

GPS is said to depend on relativity to compensate for different clock speeds. In fact, the Lorentz transformations are used, which were not Einstein´s, but Lorentz´, as the name implies. Einstein used these transformations incorrectly to fit his theory. If GPS really used the formulas as proposed by Einstein, they would be inaccurate and it can be proven. (See chapter 18 of the paper). The problem here is that the clock speeds are indeed different and that is therefore automatically related to the Theories of Relativity, when in reality the idea is confirmed, but the mathematics are different. I.e., a bad case of hear-say.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
First things first, what is the criteria for falsification for this hypothesis?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


Can I make a suggestion? Why not summarise the main elements of the arguement, rather than prattle about time pieces? Might improve the thread, and the subsequent conversation somewhat?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


GPS is said to depend on relativity to compensate for different clock speeds. In fact, the Lorentz transformations are used, which were not Einstein´s, but Lorentz´, as the name implies. Einstein used these transformations incorrectly to fit his theory. If GPS really used the formulas as proposed by Einstein, they would be inaccurate and it can be proven. (See chapter 18 of the paper). The problem here is that the clock speeds are indeed different and that is therefore automatically related to the Theories of Relativity, when in reality the idea is confirmed, but the mathematics are different. I.e., a bad case of hear-say.


i too have read on gps and lorentz transforms,
and have come to a similar conclusion,

will write more when i come back

brb

xploder



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 





My third thought is how something that can be experimentally proven, and used everyday with GPS systems, can be said to be faulty?


Mental gymnastics, get used to it around here.

While I do find it interesting, and might actually take the time to read the book, I'm not going to put much faith in me being swayed, considering general relativity and special relativity have been experimentally proven to be accurate.

that's the thing though, even if there's an error in there somewhere, or Einstein was completely wrong, the theory stands today, it's accurate ENOUGH.

I mean, we've planned every space mission, every satellite, all of it, based on the facts Einstein showed us, and those who followed him that could actually understand half of his theories.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


We've proven time dilation, as theorized by Einstein, is a fact. We've done it with atomic clocks. so you can prattle on all you want, time dilation DOES happen, that's why GPS satellites need to be constantly adjusted.

It's a fact, an atomic clock (that is measuring the atomic decay of I believe a cesium atom) is placed on earth, another in orbit, or on a plane, anything that allows it to move faster through space/time, the clock moving faster has a time dilation effect, making time move slower for that device when compared to the one not moving as fast.

It's an experimentally proven fact.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

phishyblankwaters


I mean, we've planned every space mission, every satellite, all of it, based on the facts Einstein showed us, and those who followed him that could actually understand half of his theories.

What facts exactly?
BTW Op Interesting Topic tho I haven't read you link



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


Assuming for a moment that Pavlovic's work is correct - what does it mean?

Does it fundamentally change anything?

Am reading the paper now, but you seem pretty well versed in the science/maths and I'm curious as to what your opinion is.

Thanks - and S&F.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

alfa1

Originally posted by RationalDespair
Mr. Pavlovic wrote a paper in 1994 entitled "Einstein´s Theory of Relativity: Scientific Theory or Illusion?"

I invite you to read it first and then comment on it here. I would suggest reading at least the first 20 chapters




My first thought was "Special", or "General"?
And why wouldnt he put it in the title of his book which one he was attacking?
(after reading the 'preface', I assume he means "Special", though he doesnt actually say that)

My second thought was that nobody is going to read 20 chapters of a cranks book, no matter how short they are.

My third thought is how something that can be experimentally proven, and used everyday with GPS systems, can be said to be faulty?
edit on 2-11-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


Gravitational lensing, Gravity Probe B, the decay of millisecond pulsars, and heck the Hubble redshift make full general relativity "case closed" for me.

The thing is that relativity is, at its core, assertions about symmetry & transformation properties of underlying physical equations of motion. So it is intimately involved with high-energy physics and properties which have been verified experimentally to an extraoardinary precision.

In the end the Michelson Morley results don't matter as much as every particle accelerator built. If there's anything "wrong" (I doubt it) then it is in our application of underlying principles (which are stupendously well verified) to macroscopic systems. As anybody who's taken freshman physics problem sets may vouch, it's not so easy to get everything just right even when the underlying laws are completely clear.
edit on 11-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

RationalDespair
reply to post by alfa1
 


These are exactly the kind of responses I was afraid of.

He indeed means Special, but with that debunked, nothing much of General remains.

If you consider it to be a "cranks book" from the start, then this is not really for you. Science cannot progress in the right direction when alternative ideas are not taken into account anymore and established, controversial theories are no longer subject of scrutiny. This is the main problem in science today, and you are only confirming the mainstream thought.

This is not just any paper without justification or just some random pseudo-science. As I explained in the OP, this is a very well constructed argument against the principles of relativity and it also explains why every "proof" of relativity can also be explained without it, providing the correct mathematics, not just claiming so.


The argument for relativity is based on experiment.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Why were gravity probes sent up when allegedly GPS were using GR
all the time, making sending up gravity probes a moot issue in itself.
IMHO it was and will keep being done again, because GR is not a case
closed issue and never will be.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Nochzwei
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Why were gravity probes sent up when allegedly GPS were using GR
all the time, making sending up gravity probes a moot issue in itself.


Because GP-B was designed as a test of GR to high precision, measuring things to an even finer precision and other effects (frame-dragging) specifically



IMHO it was and will keep being done again, because GR is not a case
closed issue and never will be.


Sure, there can always be some modifcations in exotic circumstances not yet known---but GR is not wrong for any 'obvious' reason or blunder.





top topics
 
4

log in

join