More Einstein mistakes

[Spiral Path]

Einstein was a genius - there is no question about that. But even a genius can make mistakes - though in some cases the original "blunder" may turn out to possibly be right after all if examined in a different light. You probably remember the case of "the cosmological constant".

Anyway, here I would like to draw attention to the fact that Einstein apparently considered the Newtonian gravitational constant G and the velocity of light in a vacuum c as indisputable CONSTANTS. Period. No ifs or buts or any other explanation to the contrary. And those two just lately re-measured figures even found their way AS EXACT CONSTANTS into the physics handbooks and other physics literature without any reference to sigma or other notes about the almost certain discrepancies in the individual measurements - as is usually done with other measured figures. - That's really not the "scientifc" way to treat measured quantities, is it? And there were even some courageous authors who pointed that out in published papers with historical graphs clearly showing an almost-evolutionary oscillation in these measured quantities over the past 200 years or so since, for exampla, Cavendish's first measurements of G. But those gutsy people apparently were simply ignored and G as well as c continue to be considered exact constants.

This is enough to "digest" for today - I have more Einstein mistakes to point out later in another post. Please correct me if I made any grievous mistake myself in presenting these historical facts - and let's see whether we can co-operatively correct these errors in interpretation.

Spiral Path

[AntonioLao]

The speed of light is a constant only if measured in empty space devoid of matter and energy as the reciprocal of the square root of the product of absolute electrical permittivity and absolute magnetic permeability or in optics as the square root of the product of group velocity and phase velocity.

[Spiral Path]

Thank you, A.L. for being sufficiently interested in what I have to say by replying to my post. Actually, this kind of criticism is exactly what I need so that I can properly defend the position I am taking with my suggestion for a toe. Otherwise I might forget to elaborate on certain controversial topics. Here is what you said ...

The speed of light is a constant only if measured in empty space devoid of matter and energy as the reciprocal of the square root of the product of absolute electrical permittivity and absolute magnetic permeability or in optics as the square root of the product of group velocity and phase velocity.

... and here is what I want to ask:
Where in the universe do you find completely empty space devoid of any matter and energy so that you can make the appropriate measurements? I am quite sure that even in the best lab with the best vacuum pumps you will never ever get a complete vacuum.

Mind you, I have no quarrel with the numbers that came out of those measurements, and at this point in time at the present velocity of the solar system as it orbits the central bulge of the Milky Way galaxy, those measurements may be perfectly correct. But I still say that in everyday life it's the velocity of any particle that changes constantly and thus determines its overall momentum at any given instant on its spiral paths. How else can you distinguish between "high-energy" photons of, say, gamma rays and "low-energy" photons of radio waves? - And it's the overall momentum, a combination of mass and speed (i.e. velocity and direction), that really counts for any effect it causes. For an illustration, just imagine a bullet shot with a gun and a similar bullet thrown by hand.

My ideas may not be properly worded in the above paragraph, but I still maintain that any measured quantity that has units (such as mass or velocity) cannot be a constant; it changes oscillatorily with time and space. Einstein - and with him the whole physics community through adopting wholeheartedly his relativity concept during the past 100 years - is WRONG in elevating the two variables of G and c to the status of "constant". It may make perhaps all the involved calculations simpler, but this is not how nature works. - At least that's my opinion.

Regards,
Spiral Path

[austintorn@aol.com]

Maybe photons start out at the speed of light since that is the rate that the nucleon spins at and throws them off at; then they run into stuff.

[AntonioLao]

this kind of criticism

Not a criticism but a scientific fact. The other related fact is Cerenkov radiation discovered in 1934.

Where in the universe do you find completely empty space

If you find it let me know.

but I still maintain that any measured quantity that has units (such as mass or velocity) cannot be a constant

Now, try that argument with anyone who understood quantum mechanics.

I have no quarrel with the numbers that came out of those measurements

Until your own measurements are different.

[Spiral Path]

Maybe photons start out at the speed of light since that is the rate that the nucleon spins at and throws them off at; then they run into stuff.

Thank you for your comment, austintorn. You hit the nail on the head by implying that the speed of photons decreases when they encounter higher density, i.e. "run into stuff". Apparently this "tired light" hypothesis has come out of favour these days, but I still think it's correct and fits perfectly into my TOE.

Spiral Path

[austintorn@aol.com]

So, no big rate of expansion since the red shift was tired light?

[Spiral Path]

Not a criticism but a scientific fact. The other related fact is Cerenkov radiation discovered in 1934.

If you find it let me know.

Now, try that argument with anyone who understood quantum mechanics.

Until your own measurements are different.

Thank you for your comments again, AntonioLao. Sorry for not posting my reply sooner, but unfortunately I don't have much free time to indulge in my TOE hobby.

As to your remark that "the velocity of light is a scientific fact", I guess we have to agree to disagree. The present value given in all handbooks and websites was apparently measured back in 1983 and perhaps only at that time it was "a scientific fact". Subsequently it was adopted as the present value of this so-called "constant" by a panel of "experts" - and that will last until the next precise, though different, value comes along. This has happened before with all so-called "fundamental physical constants" and will continue to happen well into the future - at least until those experts will finally smarten up and call the constantly changing value a variable and not a "constant". In my opinion, this goes against all logic and definitions, doesn't it?

It seems to me that mathematically-oriented theoretical physicists prefer the nice clean-cut mathematical equations with only constants to plug into their calculations because that makes "elegant proofs" of their own physical theories. - Since I, as a professional geologist, am trained to be more realistic and have seen and understood first-hand the workings of Mother Nature, I use mathematical equations only as approximations for my theories and examine them in the context of what might have happened millions and billions of years ago with different values for those "constants". And I also keep in mind that the change does not occur in a haphazard manner but according to certain laws which one can deduce from the inter-relationships between all these laboriously determined temporary "constants" that the great scientists of the past few centuries have worked out.

Well, I could write a book about all this - but it's late and I am tired. So I better leave it for some other day and any specific questions you might like to ask. I notice, though, that with the other three questions/topics you raised in this your last post, you are just trying to make fun of my ideas and dismiss them as nonsense (some sort of gender discrimination?), and so I won't even bother to answer them - unless you are serious in really wanting to know my opinion. - Otherwise I like a sense of humor - as long as it isn't too crude.

Spiral Path

[Spiral Path]

So, no big rate of expansion since the red shift was tired light?

Thank you. You again hit the nail on the head - at leat in my opinion: No Big Bang (no self-respecting geologist who knows how long it takes to form a planet like Earth could believe in that nonsense anyway); no big rate of expansion or even an acceleration of the expansion rate either, actually no evidence for expansion at all; and the tired light hypothesis easily explains the changes in the speed of light as well as the redshift and the cosmic microwave background.

Spiral Path

[austintorn@aol.com]

No big bang either because even stars of the same type are not of the same state of development and so they didn't all begin at the same time of a big bang.

So perhaps some of the basic original and eternal stuff spun into neutrons (and such that led to us) and some of the stuff is still doing it somewhere or will be or somehow 'dissipated' back to the ether after some while.

Also, maybe our universe took much longer than we think to accumulate.