The Theory of Relativity is Wrong.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by JazzRoc

Oh. I thought the thread was "The Theory of Relativity is Wrong".

Both theories circulate on the net. I'm insufficiently schooled in quantum mechanics to judge the theory of relativity from a physics point of view, but I do believe there are valid reasons to suggest that Einstein plagiarised at least some of his work.

[JazzRoc]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Both theories circulate on the net. I'm insufficiently schooled in quantum mechanics to judge the theory of relativity from a physics point of view, but I do believe there are valid reasons to suggest that Einstein plagiarised at least some of his work.

Every scientist does that. "Shoulders of giants", etc., etc. There wouldn't be many practising scientists if science had to be derived from a cave-dwelling existence.

The important point (that seems to have escaped you entirely) is that he was accepted and honored by his peers and professionals in many related fields. He and the body of his work was known by a community of talented people, any one of which would have given their eyeteeth to make the distinctions he made and draw the conclusions that he drew.

He was a Nobel prizewinner. He "won". Everybody else "lost". But we all won as a consequence.

[galexander]

Can I just add here that even if Einstein were a plagiarist or not, does it make any difference?

Suggesting Einstein may have plagiarized someone else's thinking is a subtle way of giving credibility to the idea that was plagiarized.

Why bother plagiarizing someone if the idea was pure nonsense anyway?

[JazzRoc]

Originally Posted by galexander

Can I just add here that even if Einstein were a plagiarist or not, does it make any difference? Suggesting Einstein may have plagiarized someone else's thinking is a subtle way of giving credibility to the idea that was plagiarized. Why bother plagiarizing someone if the idea was pure nonsense anyway?

You're right. It's sort of beside the point. We all went to school and plagiarized subjects, didn't we? We did that in order to learn and understand the subject, really in order to discover the ability to think within and practise the relevant discipline.
In the case of physics and engineering this DOES involve considerable work and a certain fluency with mathematics. Einstein may have had a tendency to avoid work, and maybe was no mathematical genius, but he networked constantly with the top physicists and mathematicians of his day until he had produced something which NOBODY had been capable of, something which even now remains the bedrock of physics and cosmology.

It's not the person. It's his ideas. And they are hardly wrong at all. Except that they aren't a Grand Unified Theory.

How wrong is Science? This vid makes important distinctions with respect to "wrongness".



Of course you have a right to be wrong. You may play the following in YT - embedding has been disabled.

You Tube

[jane doe]

It is possibly very wrong.

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

[Sentrynox]

Partially wrong but not all wrong!
Traditional physics do have limitations since in Quantum Mechanics nothing works as read in the books!! So everything is really relative to a scale in some ways!
But I do not personally believe that a Unified Theory of Everything is likely to exist! I do rather believe that we will have to settle to a Universal theory of unpredictability!



Universal Law of Unpredictability: My “Mystical” Theory | The Mind Traveler

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by Sentrynox

But I do not personally believe that a Unified Theory of Everything is likely to exist! I do rather believe that we will have to settle to a Universal theory of unpredictability!

Maybe "relativity" and "unpredictability" are nothing but man's inability to see the whole picture. Maybe in the future we'll end up with a Newtonian absolute and predictable universe again by adding just extra parameters that are currently unknown. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

[jane doe]

The science man understands or seeks to understand constantly changes. Understanding is only relevant to the laws which govern. On another planet with different laws of gravity and time, scientifuc methods and formulas are different. Science is another language meant to define a world to understand and control that which is ultimately uncontrollable by man.

The more we know, the less we know.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by jane doe

On another planet with different laws of gravity and time, scientifuc methods and formulas are different. Science is another language meant to define a world to understand and control that which is ultimately uncontrollable by man.

I disagree. Formulae may use different symbols (different syntax), but their actual content should be the same if both cultures have the same level of insight since the laws of nature are the same all over the universe and objective study will lead to the same results everywhere. Like a Japanese person will use a different word to refer to a book, the meaning of both the English word "book" and the Japanese word remain the same. A use of different symbols does not imply a change of content.

[jane doe]

Interesting, out of the box. Even with mathematics, potential vision and hearing differences between species, one would have the same conclusion of a changing environment/cosmos? I always thought science was strictly relevant to the theory being presented.

I appreciate your use of the object 'book' to define your pov, but a book isn't unlimited as the theory of relativity. just a thought.