Logical Falsification of Deductive Theories in Physics
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-19 19:54:20 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein's general relativity is an empirical concoction (not even wrong) so the idea of falsification is irrelevant. In contrast, special relativity is deductive and can be falsified both logically (reductio ad absurdum) and experimentally.

The logical falsification of special relativity is easy because all consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate are absurd. For instance, length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies infinite compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The unlimitedly compressed object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture:

Loading Image...

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-20 07:55:44 UTC
Raw Message
Why the twin paradox is actually an absurdity:

Imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks and travel with constant speed:

Loading Image...

A single stationary ant, with a clock, is located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. As traveling ants pass the stationary ant, they check its (stationary) clock against their (moving) clocks.

Three conclusions are conceivable:

Conclusion 1: The single stationary clock will shows LESS AND LESS time elapsed than moving clocks consecutively passing it. This implies that the single stationary ant is getting younger and younger than traveling brothers it consecutively meets.

Conclusion 2: The single stationary clock will shows MORE AND MORE time elapsed than moving clocks consecutively passing it. This implies that the single stationary ant is getting older and older than traveling brothers it consecutively meets.

Conclusion 3: The single stationary clock NEITHER SLOWS DOWN NOR SPEEDS UP relative to moving clocks consecutively passing it. This implies that the single stationary ant is aging just as fast as traveling brothers it consecutively meets.

It is easy to see that, for this scenario, Conclusion 1, "Stationary clocks run slower", is the one deducible from Einstein's 1905 postulates:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

In a different scenario (universally taught by Einsteinians), the opposite conclusion, "Stationary clocks run faster", is deducible from Einstein's 1905 postulates. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency (it predicts that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks) and should be immediately discarded:

W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-20 21:21:28 UTC
Raw Message
My long-standing efforts to convince physicists that DEDUCTION is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics (everything else produces "theories" that are not even wrong) have finally paid off:

Lubos Motl: "Quantum mechanics is another example of deductive reasoning. [...] Only the implications "IF... THEN..." are guaranteed to hold according to the quantum mechanical laws of physics." http://motls.blogspot.bg/2017/05/quantum-mechanics-is-another-example-of.html

Motl is avoiding any mentioning of Einstein's relativity - he now knows that general relativity is not deductive. And the only alternative to deductive theory is empirical (in the sense defined by Einstein below) concoction - a "theory" that is not even wrong and is therefore unfalsifiable. Einstein clearly explains this here:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Special relativity was indeed "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions", that is, it was deductive (even though a false postulate and an invalid argument spoiled it from the very beginning), but general relativity was, to use Einstein's words, "a purely empirical enterprise". Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner. Being an empirical concoction, general relativity allows Einsteinians to introduce, change and withdraw fudge factors until the "theory" manages to predict anything Einsteinians want. Then the prediction turns out to be confirmed by observations (surprise surprise). So, as far as the unfalsifiability problem is concerned, THE ROOT OF THE EVIL IS GENERAL RELATIVITY.

The fudge-factor activity is inglorious and Einsteinians don't discuss it openly, but sometimes the truth comes out inadvertently. So conventional dark matter models based on general relativity "need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data" (how many fudge factors LIGO conspirators needed in order to model the nonexistent gravitational waves is a deep mystery):

"Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data."

Being an empirical concoction, Einstein's general relativity has no postulates:

What are the postulates of General Relativity? Alexander Poltorak, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the CCNY: "In 2005 I started writing a paper, "The Four Cornerstones of General Relativity on which it doesn't Rest." Unfortunately, I never had a chance to finish it. The idea behind that unfinished article was this: there are four principles that are often described as "postulates" of General Relativity:

1. Principle of general relativity

2. Principle of general covariance

3. Equivalence principle

4. Mach principle

The truth is, however, that General Relativity is not really based on any of these "postulates" although, without a doubt, they played important heuristic roles in the development of the theory." [end of quotation]

Essentially, general relativity is equivalent to the "empirical models" defined here (that is, it is as much a theory as they are):

"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Here Michel Janssen describes the anti-deductive approach of Einstein and his mathematical friends - endlessly adjusting the model until "excellent agreement with observation" is reached:

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-22 06:18:29 UTC
Raw Message
The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame:

The Bug-Rivet Paradox

This is reductio ad absurdum. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Einsteinians resolve the absurdity by superimposing an even greater absurdity - the rivet gets longer than itself:

"In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

"Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't physics great?"

Note that, according to Einsteinians, the end of the rivet keeps on going at 87% the speed of light and a wave traveling at the speed of sound is chasing it in order to stop it! We all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we? In this case "Einstein's oligophrenic world" sounds much better.

Pentcho Valev