quote:

---

Was Einstein a fake?

by John Farrell

There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein a fake?

If you're tired of hearing about 'Intelligent design' creationists and the court wars against Darwin's theory in the U.S., you might be surprised to learn that another pillar of modern science, Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, is under attack.

A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it's an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was no less than a cheat.

A quick glance at anti-relativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works – very few of them in agreement with each other. But despite their many differences, common themes among these self-described iconoclasts do emerge: resentment of academic 'elites', suspicion of the entire peer-review process in mainstream scientific journals and a deep-seated paranoia about the extent of government involvement in scientific projects.

An aethro-kinematics website (www.aethro-kinematics.com) claims to refute relativity by resurrecting René Descartes' theory that the Earth and all the planets are carried around the Sun by an "Aether vortex". Another site points to the work of one Stefan Marinov, a self-described dissident, who apparently threatened to immolate himself in front of the British Embassy in Vienna, Austria, because he was so incensed by the refusal of the respected journal Nature to publish his 'proofs' against relativity.

This is just a taste. A visit to Google reveals the extent of the phenomenon. Is this a new front in the war on science? Can we expect a new Discovery Institute, armed with millions of dollars from eccentric fundamentalists, spoiling for a rematch in school boards across the U.S. — this time attacking Einstein and not Darwin?

Hopefully not, according to Bryan Gaensler, a professor of physics at the University of Sydney. "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along well enough to form a serious threat to science."

Having said that, he adds, "there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by anti-relativity cranks, called 'Crisis in Cosmology'. I think the first one was held in Spain and they're planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane."

---

He also denied the possibility of Quantum Physics saying "God does not play dice".

However, these are minor issues to the overall scheme of things, physisists still use much of his theorum and have built and improved on it.

That REALLY seems to push their buttons, because they practically squint their eyes, hop up and down, and have fits over the idea.

(To clarify: If I stand here and you stand somewhere else, and we're moving with respect to each other, then if I hold a ball and drop it, and it comes back up to me, we can each describe what's going on with a set of mathematical operations collectively called "Galilean Transformations", which allow us to describe the same physical situation.

It turns out that if I hold an electric charge in my hand, and we are moving with respect to each other, those transformations will not work. You need the "Lorentz Transformations", which actually reduce to the Galilean limit under certain conditions. This seems to drive the cranks nuts because Einstein was the one that showed that you can't use the Galilean Transformations if there's no ether.)

To be fair though, I don't think many theoretical physicists believe relativity and quantum physics are the fundamental truth. They're perceived as low-energy limits of a more fundamental theory, sort of like newtonian mechanics was.

Personally I really like the idea of string theory, but that's only because it sounds very romantic to have the foundations of the universe based on little tiny musical* stings.

He said that if you were to split the atom, you could potentially release vast amounts of energy.

Right! "Atomic energy". Suuuure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
I don't see where what I said and you said disagree with each other. Einstein added the constant in as a filler, as it turns out it's necessary, and is likely the sign of something else that we're 'missing' in the equations.

Personally I really like the idea of string theory, but that's only because it sounds very romantic to have the foundations of the universe based on little tiny musical* stings.

* and by that I mean resonance vibrations, but that's the general idea of how string instruments work, but on a far larger scale.

---

Actually,