I have posted my comment at:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html Einstein is correct, but he has been misunderstood by a lot of people; and allowances must be made for minor mistakes. In the scheme of Einstein it is Special Relativity -> General Relativity -> Unified Field Theory. Where the next theory in the chain explains more than the previous theory, e.g. General Relativity explains more phenomenon that Special Relativity. So, that Unified Field Theory explains more than General Relativity. What happened in the 1920/30s was a clash between Bohr and Einstein, which is often summarised as Einstein famously saying "God does not play dicewith the universe." The physicists were persuaded to follow Bohr's approach instead of Einstein's. This meant abandonment of the majority to the work that had been done on Unified Field Theory. Without understanding the Unified Field Theory it is not possible to have a proper understanding of many of the issues in Einstein's re!
lativity theories. Hence why the Physics community does not have a proper understanding of these theories. The real issue is why does the Physics Community want an incomplete understanding of Einstein's theories, and why does it no longer teach Einstein's Unified Field Theory; because contrary to the myth that many people state that there is no unified field theory, there IS. And it exists in the scientific records. I have been involved in trying to get some of this information onto the web, and consider it a type of conspiracy in the sense that no one in supposed authority in the physics community is taking up the issue of the unified field theory, and instead pretend it does not exist. Regards Roger Anderton www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk> ----- Original Message -----> From: "Pentcho Valev" <[log in to unmask]>> To: <[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:26 PM> Subject: POPPER, EINSTEIN AND INCONSISTENT THEORIES>>>> Karl Popper: "...we can argue!
that it would be a>> highly improbable coincidence if a theory like>> Einstein's could correctly predict very precise>> measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless>> there is 'some truth' in it.">>>> Popper should have verified the internal logic of>> Einstein's theory. If the theory is an INCONSISTENCY,>> it CAN produce correct predictions. Initially Einstein>> introduced a false premise (the speed of light is>> independent of the speed of the light source), then>> deduced miracles (time dilation, length contraction>> etc.) from it and accordingly became a>> miracle-producing divinity but eventually reintroduced>> the true premise (the speed of light does depend on>> the speed of the light source) and obtained correct>> predictions (e.g. the frequency shift factor). The>> inconsistency is much more dangerous than an ordinary>> wrong theory since it irreversibly destroys>> rationality in science. See more in>>>> http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm>>http://blogs!
.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html>>>> Pentcho Valev>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________>> Do You Yahoo!?>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around>> http://mail.yahoo.com>>>
|