|
Debunking Einstein, Part II
by Chris Verral
June 12, 2002
This is continuation of my review of Einstein's work. In this part I will
consider his special theory of relativity of 1905. In a subsequent article I
will discuss the general relativity theory.
Two fundamental building blocks of this theory are: (1) The
speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames regardless of the
relative speeds of the inertial frames. (2) All laws of physics (classical
Newton's mechanics and Electrodynamics laws given by Maxwell).
Most people do not realize that Einstein's theory of relativity was based on
great deal of work and research by many physicists and scientists. Even when
the work and influence of other scientists is acknowledged, it is assumed that, while other scientist such as Poincare and Lorentz made many contributions, they failed to grasp or perceive clearly, and it was the genius of Einstein that cleared the way in developing theory of special
relativity. I assert that this claim is false, and the final credit for
the special theory of relativity should be accorded to Lorentz and Poincare, and to a lesser extent to Maxwell.
I will start with an example of cheating, although one difficult to prove. (For cheating is what Einstein did, and I am convinced of this). Here
is the example. It is rather simple and naïve example, but it will
demonstrate my point.
Let us suppose we live in world where all the triangles are isosceles triangles (triangles that have two equal sides). Suppose we have knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem. We assume nothing else about such triangles. Make the further rather silly assumption that people do not know that in this world every triangle is an isosceles triangle. In this strange world people notice that in every triangle there is vertex such that any perpendicular line from this vertex to the side opposite to it divides the side in two equal segments. Keep in mind that in this world people don't know that all triangles are isosceles (this discovery should be viewed as the analog of the assumption that speed of light is absolute in all inertial frames). Let's say someone by the name of Lorentz studies such triangles. Keep in mind Mr. Lorentz is unaware of the fact that in this world every triangle is an isosceles triangle. He then, using the Pythagorean theorem, finds a formula that gives the length of each of the two equal sides in terms of the length of the 3rd side, and the length of the perpendicular bisector.
We will call these formulas Lorentz's formula. Lorentz finds this a little
puzzling. His formula shows that in every triangle in this world, two of the
three sides have equal length. He scratches his head. Why? He wants to find
an answer to the question: why does every triangle has this property? It leaves
him little uncomfortable with his own results. He has obtained this result
by mathematical manipulation (Pythagorean theorem). So he is a little
unsure. This he what he finally does: He writes the formula that gives the
length of the equal sides in terms of the non-equal side and the length of the
perpendicular bisector, but he doesn't outright state that all triangles
are isosceles.
Now comes Mr. Einstein. He claims that he is a visionary! His vision and
deep insight tell him that all triangles in this world are isosceles.
Starting from this assumption, and using the Pythagorean theorem, he comes up with the result that in every triangle there is vertex such that any perpendicular line from this vertex to the side opposite to it divides the side in two equal segments. In the process, he, of course, rediscovers Lorentz's formula.
This is the precise analog of relationship of Einstein's work to Lorentz's
work. I will elaborate further on this later, but a quick summary as
follows. Maxwell had developed the field theory of electromagnetics (EM). In
his theory speed of light (or any other EM wave ) is constant in a vacuum.
Lorentz noticed that Maxwell's equations are independent of any coordinate
system, thus he tried to find the transformations between two moving
inertial frames that would leave the speed of light invariant. He succeeded
and found the unique set of transformations known as Lorentz
transformations. But this transformation led to some strange results,
namely, to time dilation and length contraction.
Take length contraction for
instance. It tells us that an observer measuring a rod at rest, and
measuring the rod when the rod is moving at speed v (assuming he uses the same measuring method) would find that the rod's length at rest is a little
larger. Lorentz was not entirely comfortable with this. He was convinced
that there are some other forces and physical interpretations that should
explain this. Very natural skepticism I must say.
Lorentz had obtained his transformation by mathematical manipulation, so it
was entirely reasonable for him to seek a physical answer to this contraction
phenomenon. Lorentz next investigated whether the contraction hypothesis is
sufficient for deriving the principle of relativity. SO LORENTZ IS
INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY BEFORE EINSTEIN'S WORK! More
important, after some heavy-duty calculation he established that this was
not the case, but he also found out what assumptions are to be added. Here
was his new assumption: A NEW TIME MEASURE MUST BE USED IN A SYSTEM WHICH IS
MOVING UNIFORMLY. He called this time, which differs from system to system,
the LOCAL TIME. What does this mean? Clearly it means that
there is no such thing as absolute time. Therefore the original idea of
relative time is not due to Einstein.
Now I should point out that Lorentz
being a real scientist was grappling with many other issues simultaneously,
which some how obscures his contributions. Light and electromagnetic waves
are vibrations, and the idea that a vibration must have medium to carry it
has been deeply embedded in the practical view of the world of kinematics. Since speed of light was absolute, an object called ether was conceived for the
express purpose of being a carrier of light vibrations, or, more generally the
electromagnetic forces in empty space. Vibrations without something that
vibrates seemed unthinkable. On the other hand the assertion that in empty
space there are observable vibrations goes beyond all possible experiences.
Empty space free of all matter is no object of observation at all. Light and
EM forces are never observable except in connection with bodies. All that we
can ascertain is that action starts from a material body (source of EM
radiation) and arrives at another material body some time later. What occurs
in the interval is purely hypothetical, or, more precisely, a matter of
suitable assumption. This view is a step in the direction of higher
abstraction, releasing us from the previously considered necessary
components of our thinking. This requires that ether, as a substance, should
vanish from theory. Lorentz however did not give up the idea of ether
(Lorentz was a no-nonsense scientists who didn't get into philosophical
explanations). Poincare, however, discarded the idea of ether. At any event,
putting aside this problem of ether, Poincare and Lorentz had in fact
derived and established the validity of the principles of theory of
relativity.
So what is Einstein's contribution? Let us go back to the silly example of the
world of isosceles triangles. Establishing the validity of the principle of
relativity is analogous to the establishing the formulas connecting the
length of the equal sides in terms of the length of the perpendicular
bisector and the length of none-equal side by Mr. Lorentz.
In this case the result was obtained by manipulating Maxwell's equations.
Einstein takes the results or consequence of Lorentz (or Poincare) and
says that these are the principles of relativity. He then derives Lorentz
equations starting from this assumption.
Very clever, and very sly! The Jewish propaganda machines would like us to
believe that Einstein came to the knowledge of these principles not by some tricky mathematical manipulation of Maxwell's equations, but due to his enlarged brain and deeper understanding of the universe. Lorentz's transformations and his local-time theory are equivalent to the principle of relativity. In other words, you can obtain one from the other.
So in essence, going back to world of isosceles triangles, Mr. Einstein takes
the consequence of Lorentz's formula (two sides of every triangle are
equal), and states his principle of isosceles triangles: all triangles are
isosceles -- and derives Lorentz's formulas).
A final point: I saw an article where supposedly examination of Einstein's
brain showed that one side of his brain was 15% larger than normal. This
side was supposedly the analytical/mathematical functioning side of the brain.
This may be true (that a part of his brain was 15% larger), but I don't
agree that that made him smarter in mathematics, because (1): He failed his
entrance exam that consisted mostly of math problems; (2) His derivation
of Lorentz equations is full of gaps and shows little mathematical
ingenuity (indeed most of his mathematics that I have examined seem to
indicate a deficiency in this area rather than superiority).
CHRIS VERRAL
|
