Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity


Not my field, but my interest.
My understanding. Light is at the same speed all the time. I view it as a bunch of datum points. Each datum point starts movement at zero.
Example. I throw a baseball at 30 miles per hour. But I am standing on earth that is moving around at 1,000 miles per hour. That does not mean the ball is moving at 1,030 miles per hour from my datum point. But it may be moving 1,030 miles per hour from the earth rotations datum point.
Then I point my flashlight towards space in the opposite direction of the center of the universe. Let’s say our solar system is expanding at near the speed of light from the big bang.
So technically my light is traveling twice the speed of light from the center of the universe.
But the light only can be measured from the datum point, the flashlight.
I’m I in line with your thinking?

Scott, physicists have been testing Einstein’s theories since he proposed them and they have passed every test. If you think you have a better theory send it to a peer-reviewed journal. Posting it here makes you look like every other crackpot] on the Internet. Well, not as demonstrably crazy as that Veegtron] guy, but still bordering crackpot territory.



I don’t know how you could get published without a formal education. My best guess would be to emulate Michael Faraday and find someone as brilliant as James Clerk Maxwell to mentor you. The problem is physics has gotten much more complicated since Faraday’s time. How much do you know about differential equations, tensor analysis, relativity and quantum mechanics?
If you want to be taken seriously then providing a testable hypothesis explaining why the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating would be a good avenue to explore. Even if you could do that you would not prove Einstein wrong, you would be filling in an area where his theories do not apply, just as Einstein did not prove Newton wrong but rather expanded the scope of science.
So my first piece of advice is to stop proclaiming Einstein was wrong.

You are correct. Light is the set of electromagnetic waves within a specific range of the electromagnetic spectrum. But if you are at a different relative velocity, the light that you would measure, though still being measured the same, is not the very same range of the spectrum relative to a different velocity.
That's freshman astronomy stuff, Scott and fits well within Einstein's theory. As for your example, light travels 671 million miles per hour. Your spacecraft would be on the other side of the Sun long before your one hour program had run its course. You need a better analogy.

Do you know about http://www.academia.edu
Light is the set of electromagnetic waves within a specific range of the electromagnetic spectrum. But if you are at a different relative velocity, the light that you would measure, though still being measured the same, is not the very same range of the spectrum relative to a different velocity.
It explains why starlight color is not all blues and reds.
You might know the answer to this question. Einstein’s theories, wasn’t Einstein’s theories before they proved Ether Winds did not exist in space.
My layman’s thought.
I don’t think Einstein was say that light was constant. I think he was using light to explain that the magnetic field the light travels in is a constant. Change the magnetic field and you change the speed of light. For example – Black Holes.

Let me explain with an analogy. Imagine that you are in a space craft going away from Earth toward the moon. Imagine further that there is a transmitter on both the moon and Earth that are capable of sending out a stream of data via electromagnetic waves of your favorite episode of Star Trek. Now we know that since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we know that those signals can only travel at the fixed speed of light, c. Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program. But wait...since the same program is being sent from the moon simultaneously as you travel toward it, then that stream would be compressed in duration and should appear shorter in length than the hour. Now if this is to be fixed according to Einstein, your relative time would have to speed up if you are to still perceive the signal as being one hour long. This is contradictory to Einstein's claim that you could even measure light (the electromagetic stream) to be the same in all directions.
I think this is either helpful for trying to imagine how spacetime adjusts so that the speed of light is constant. Or you're right. Stephen
Scott, physicists have been testing Einstein's theories since he proposed them and they have passed every test. If you think you have a better theory send it to a peer-reviewed journal. Posting it here makes you look like every other crackpot] on the Internet. Well, not as demonstrably crazy as that Veegtron] guy, but still bordering crackpot territory.
I agree.

You mean Scott ISN’T a world renouned, Nobel laureate physicist??? :bug:

You mean Scott ISN'T a world renouned, Nobel laureate physicist???? :bug: Occam
I doubt he has even taken freshman physics and astronomy, much less differential equations and relativity.

Light years (get it!) outside my ability and understanding. But I’m pretty much going to almost always err on the side of Einstein. I think something many people don’t realize is that his findings are many times counterintuitive. Common sense can’t help in such areas.
On a related note (or possibly not), physicists have slowed light down to 38 MPH: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
From my quantumly small (see, I did it again!) understanding, this does NOT invalidate anything Einstein said because it is going slower than the speed of light, not faster.

Common sense can't help in such areas.
As far as I can see this is just a case of picturing the changes in spacetime that keep the speed of light constant in Scott's example (assuming Einstein is right). edit: something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94 Why people who say they know a bit about this aren't prepared to have a go and instead just think it's fun to knock Scott I dunno. Stephen

Knock Scott ?
Really StephenLawrence…really ?
The guy says " I think that Einstein was wrong and my own uneducated untested wacko ‘theory’ is right" and you say that people just want to knock him…
Get thee to a nunnery !
Don’t humour people like him…either he is trolling or just plain dopey but either way his opinion on General Relativity is just that…uninformed opinion.

Stephen, one of the primary signs someone is a crackpot is when a person with no formal science education proclaims Einstein was wrong and he has a better theory, then posts it on Internet discussion boards instead of finding a scientist to work with him. Scott has posted some interesting comments on these forums, but this latest crossed the line into crackpot territory. For those who are interested, here] is the link to Scott’s post on scienceforums.net. Several commenters there have posted detailed explanations of why Scott’s idea has no merit.
I would like to thank Scott for leading me there. I had never seen those forums. There are some intelligent, articulate members posting there. I’ve bookmarked the site.
Edit: Oh, and Scott, this] explains why the moderator moved your post.


I think a few people are forgetting Einstein’s other theory, one that unfortunately hasn’t gained general acceptance yet.

When asked to write short essay on "the ethical significance of Spinoza's philosophy," Einstein replied: I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty.
Not saying I manage to live up to this b.t.w. Back to the topic I'm wondering if the solution is simple, or perhaps I'll just show my ignorance, let's see. I think the film does take much longer than it's original length to reach the space craft when the signal is transmitted from Earth. The speed of light remains constant for the observer but the signal from the end of the film simply travels much further at the same speed than the signal from the beginning of the film and so takes longer to reach the space craft . Stephen
What has bothered me most is that as a skeptic, the very reasons I have learned to questioned things as I do in all areas outside of science is due to the queerness or oddness of certain explanations for reality. I apply the same thing to science. But as I began to learn science, in particular, things like the Big Bang, Relativity, etcetera, I discover that the strangeness and non-intuitive ideas are just as popular there as in religion, cults, scams, politics, and everything else. The blanketed trust in the authorities of today's scientists has no more significant justification without proof as any other subject
The universe is under no obligation to behave according to our intuitive understanding. And, as I said earlier and several people pointed out to you on scienceforums.net, Einstein's theory has passed every test thrown at it for 100 years, yet you still talk about trust without proof.
For the same reason, I am irritated by the endless requests by professionals within science to demand that we must acquire a full fledged four year degree in order to be even qualified to make a logical argument. If today's theories are to be trusted by just anyone, the scientist is obliged to present their views in a manner that is either intuitively fair in logical terms to any human ear without the needs to impose a special language prerequisite (math, in this case, for the most part). This is not being done. Any sources available anywhere either intimidates the audience with pompous implications of inadequacies on the part of the listener or they explain some of those theoretical concepts with relative mysticism.
There are many books available that explain myriad science topics without resorting to math, mysticism or condescending tones. Further, if you want to make logical arguments about science you should study philosophy.
I understand relativity as Einstein originally proposed it without the need for the math. But the explanations of it, so far as I have been able to discover, present themselves with severe logical inconsistencies and a claim of an acceptable counterintuitiveness. I do NOT except (sic) that science requires an escape of intuition of normal experience any more than any claims by the paranormal. If it is counterintuitive, the explanation is either false or inadequate to simply accept.
Once again, the universe is under no obligation to meet our intuitive ideas.
For example, the Big Bang, as we are all popularly reminded, is a mere 15 Billion years old. Yet, we are to accept that even though the Solar system is a third of that age, we are just to trust that the evidence proves that rather than question the explanation for it.
Actually, it is 13.82 billion years, and no scientist is asking us to just trust that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. As I pointed out a few posts ago, this is freshman astronomy stuff. Your ignorance is not evidence scientists are asking us to believe anything on mere trust. This is an example of why scientists find it hard to take people seriously when they don't have a formal education in a given field.
The problem is that the contemporary view is to allow the original composers of a view to take pecedence for their explanations and credit them if the science supports the view INDUCTIVELY, until something new can be experimented with that is unique to the theoretical proposal. It forces us to accept the cultural claims of an explanation and only change by an evolutionary process (ie, keeping the junk DNA, so to speak) rather than allow others to present a new or improved explanation of a theory without proposing anything new.
You say "inductively" as if it is a bad thing, yet inductive reasoning is the essence of science. The scientific method is agnostic to cultural claims and does allow people to present new and improved explanations, but how in the world can you do so without proposing anything new? You are no longer making sense.
Einstein had most of it right. His explanations are in error!!
And yet his theories have passed every test possible for 100 years. Just because Einstein's explanations disagree with your intuition does not mean his explanations are wrong.
If I propose something that doesn't alter the math, I don't need the math to argue it.
At which point you are practicing philosophy, not science. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, but if you don't understand the distinction you'll never get anywhere.
It isn't necessary to require an experiment for every proposed theory. That's irrational dogma.
You do not understand the meaning of the word "theory." An idea which cannot be tested is not a theory. This is not irrational dogma, it is the scientific method.
I haven't proposed anything far fetched in my explanation. It is clear and, according to Occam's Razor, it's simpler and even more 'empirical' because it is intuitively understandable from anyone's perspective.
There you go with that intuition stuff again.
I already read why the post in the science forum was moved to "speculation". I highly disagree with doing so even for the most moronic views because it decision is based on opinions of people who believe in a status quo and feel threatened unreasonably by allowing such views to be taken seriously. I was directly insulted by being placed there because it automatically disrespected my view by POISONING THE WELL!
Then post your idea on a philosophy forum where it belongs.
I like to at least thank some you, like Mike and Steven, for actually reading what I said rather than dismissing me as a nut from just the title. Even nuts have nutritional value.
I actually read what you said too, and I disagree with you. What you are saying is not science. If you want to pursue your idea further I suggest you read some philosophy of science and change course. If you want to study science and try to gain respect for your idea as science you'll first need to understand the meaning of the word "theory" and why testing ideas is important.