Registrierung Mitgliederliste Administratoren und Moderatoren Suche Häufig gestellte Fragen Zur Startseite  

Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung Links zur Wissenschaftskritik und Erkenntnistheorie The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity Hallo Gast [anmelden|registrieren]
Druckvorschau | An Freund senden | Thema zu Favoriten hinzufügen
Neues Thema erstellen Antwort erstellen
Autor
Beitrag Vorheriges Thema | Nächstes Thema
Ekkehard Friebe Ekkehard Friebe ist männlich
Moderator




Dabei seit: 23.11.2005
Beiträge: 1154

The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity Zitatantwort auf diesen Beitrag erstellen Diesen Beitrag editieren/löschen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden       IP Information Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Hiermit mache ich aufmerksam auf eine sehr interessante Studie von Harry H. Ricker III unter dem Titel:
?The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity?
http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker39.pdf


Nachstehend bringe ich Ausz?ge daraus:


Zitat:


The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity
By Harry H. Ricker III, Email: kc3mx@yahoo.com


1.0 Introduction

This paper defines a new way to assess the scientific value of Einstein?s special theory of relativity by defining a concept called irksomeness. This follows by converting the adjective irksome, meaning vexatious or troublesome, into a noun. We will call a theory irksome by the following definition: An irksome theory is one in which each of ist component demonstrations makes sense or is rational, but the theory as a whole makes no sense or is irrational. Hence a theory, such as relativity, which is a very good example of a theory possessing this characteristic, is irksome or possesses irksomeness, if it satisfies the above definition. An irksome theory is recalcitrant in that its inconsistencies, anomalies, or paradoxes refuse to be tamed or effectively eliminated. It is also irksome when its concepts can not be clearly defined in a way such that there is a consistent agreement regarding its essential truth claims.

The irksomeness criterion bypasses some of the less germane arguments that may arise in the evaluation of a scientific theory. For instance, it might be endlessly argued that relativity is correct or valid because it has led to such fruitful results as relativistic mechanics, relativistic cosmology, and relativistic electrodynamics. Or it could be argued that the special theory of relativity is correct, and must be regarded as a scientifically truthful theory, because if it deemed invalid we would have to return to the bad old aether theory, which everyone knows is false, because relativity must be true. These arguments are fruitless and evade the main issue. If science is to be understood as a procedure for determining the true nature of reality, then a necessary criterion is that a scientific theory can not be irksome. It is not required that the theory be thought to be true for entirely different reasons, or based upon other value judgments, it is necessary because a truly valid theory must not posses irrational elements which produce contradictions in empirical facts or contradictions of interpretational facts. Furthermore, to make this clear, this requirement does not guarantee that a theory is true, is merely asserts that a theory which is irksome can simply not be true.

An irksome theory may be fixed. This can be done by a restructuring of its truth claims, its mathematical theorems, or its formalism, and by reevaluation or reinterpretation of the empirical evidence. If the irksomeness can not be corrected, then it is obvious that the theory is false. Normally, one would expect that an irksome theory would be subject to careful assessment to find the irrational elements or elements that cause the irksomeness, but this is really too much to expect of science. Generally, most scientific theories, if not all of them, are irksome, but in most cases the irksomeness is not an issue of great concern. But in the case of Einstein?s special theory of relativity, irksomeness has been a issue for over the last 100 years, and no scientifically accepted solution has been found to eliminate its irksomeness. Relativity remains scientifically ?true?: i.e. accepted as valid by the scientific establishment, despite the fact that it is very irksome, many alternatives have been put forward, and the arguments continue.


2.0 Approach

The approach to the establishment of the irksomeness of Einstein?s special theory of relativity will be based upon the following elements of argumentation. First, the definition of irksomeness will be made precise in terms of what is meant by irksomeness. The theme here is that an irksome theory has some irrational or inconsistent element or principle, which causes the irksomeness.

Second, the irksomeness in Einstein?s foundational papers will be examined. We will see that Einstein developed a strategy whereby he attempted to avoid the irksomeness in two distinct ways. The first was vague and ambiguous truth claims coupled with equally vague and ambiguous analytical concepts, and mathematical procedures, and the second was a constant revision of the foundation principles and truth claim interpretations, in order to suppress the irksomeness of his theory. We will see that one of the main problems was the constant revision of mathematical methods and the interpretation of the two postulates and the truth claims.

A primary measure of irksomeness of a theory is its expert criticism quotient. That is the amount of criticism relative to the criticism of other theories in the same field which it receives from experts or persons in a position to judge its scientific content. Here we take it as an axiom that all theories will receive criticism, however, irksome theories should be subjected to more critical comment than non irksome ones. The reason for this is that irksome theories are seen as fundamentally irrational by critics, and therefore there is much to criticize. We will see in the case of relativity, that the acrimonious criticism exceeds that of any theory of physics conceived in the twentieth century.

Another measure of the irksomeness of a theory is the belief quotient. This is a measure of the effectiveness of the scientific establishment in compelling belief in an established or formally accepted scientific theory. A very good measure is the popular perception of the compulsion to believe. Does the theory have a wide popular rejection, relative to other theories of its type? This is a measure of the effectiveness of the science establishment in making an irksome theory acceptable to normal intelligent humans as well as scientific experts. A high level of belief rejection is an indication of irksomeness.

Another aspect of irksomeness is the problem that a student encounters when he seeks to understand a scientific fact, explanation, or in this case a theory, by consulting different textbooks or expositions of the relevant science. In the case of the special theory of relativity, there are a number of irksome facts, truth claims or conflicting explanations.

We will discuss some of the most irksome of these cases, where different experts give different facts, truth claims, or theoretical interpretations with respect to the same theoretical concept. This indicates that there is no agreement as to exactly what constitutes a good exposition of the special theory of relativity, and reveals the theory to be irksome, because the conflicting explanations are irksome; i.e. they are contradictory and inconsistent. This irksomeness of different textbook expositions explains the criticism by experts and disbelief by the populace.

(Zitatende)




Der Autor kommt auf der letzten Seite seiner Arbeit zu dem Ergebnis:


Zitat:


This leads us to the conclusion that relativity must be false since there are just too many examples of irksomeness that pervade the theory from its theoretical underpinnings to ist claimed experimental validations. Everywhere you look in relativity you will find an example of irksomeness, so the theory just doesn?t fit the facts well and must therefore be discarded as false.

(Zitatende)




Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:

?The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity?
http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker39.pdf




Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe

01.08.2008 10:36 Ekkehard Friebe ist offline Email an Ekkehard Friebe senden Homepage von Ekkehard Friebe Beiträge von Ekkehard Friebe suchen Nehmen Sie Ekkehard Friebe in Ihre Freundesliste auf
Ekkehard Friebe Ekkehard Friebe ist männlich
Moderator




Dabei seit: 23.11.2005
Beiträge: 1154

Re: The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity Zitatantwort auf diesen Beitrag erstellen Diesen Beitrag editieren/löschen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden       IP Information Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Ekkehard Friebe schrieb am 01.08.2008 um 09:36 Uhr:



Zitat:


Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:

?The Irksomeness Of Einstein?s Special Theory Of relativity?
http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker39.pdf



Wenn Sie dieser Bitte folgen, dann kommen Sie auch auf folgende Textstelle ab Seite 16, die von besonderem Interesse ist im Zusammenhang mit meiner Anfrage an den Pr?sidenten der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, Prof. Dr. Gerd Litfin:
http://www.jocelyne-lopez.de/blog/?p=285
UND
http://www.jocelyne-lopez.de/blog/?p=286



Zitat:


6.3 The Irksome Hafele-Keating Experiment

In 1972 Hafele-Keating published an account of an experiment which has generally been accepted as proof of the special relativity claim that moving clocks run slow. However, this experiment is a rather irksome one for the proponents of relativity. In the first place this experiment produced the irksome result that westward moving clocks gained time and that the eastward moving clocks lost time, a result that makes no sense according to the special theory of relativity developed by Einstein, as given in his fundamental papers.

According to this theory clocks always should gain time as a result of running slow. It made no difference in Einstein?s fundamental theory in which direction the motion took place, just as long as there was a relative motion, the direction of this motion was irrelevant. Yet the Hafele-Keating result showed that the direction of the motion critically effected the result. This result is an irksome contradiction of relativity.

Before proceeding to the analysis, we will address why this experiment is considered definitive. The answer is simply that in all of the cases of the experiments claimed to prove or validate or corroborate special relativity, actual clocks were never used. Hence, as soon as it seemed that sufficiently accurate atomic clocks were available to test the theory using actual clocks, the obvious experiment of placing them in relative motion and looking for a time dilation effect was necessary.

The fundamental claim of relativity is that clocks in relative motion run slow. Hence a direct validation using actual clocks was needed. Since the Hafele-Keating experiment claims to validate the special theory of relativity, a conclusion that was believed to be valid before the experiment was even conceived, the result that it validated spezial relativity became the crowning achievement of that theory, forever validating ist truthfulness. Unfortunately it would appear that the clocks used in the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment did not posses the required accuracy to reveal the relativistic time dilation effect. A further particularly irksome result of this experiment was that the theory was refuted by the results, because according to Hafele-Keating some of the clocks ran fast in direct contradiction with the fundamental truth claim of the special theory.


6.3.1 Hafele-Keating According To Wikipedia

The following gives the Wikipedia version of the Hafele-Keating experiment:

?According to special relativity, the speed of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is not in motion with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs slower, and the effect is proportional to the square of the velocity. In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the earth's rotation, is moving faster than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the earth's rotation, is moving slower.?

This statement as it stands is actually false and involves a mistake that invalidates the analysis by Hafele-Keating that claims to validate the special theory of relativity. The problem assumes that there is a difference in the motions of clocks near the surface of the earth compared with a reference rest clock, which is a fictitious calculation device, located at the center of the earth. However, since the earth is a sphere, the aircraft travel along paths which describe circles, and relative to the center of a circle, a motion along the circumference does not involve an actual motion relative to the reference rest clock, since the distance from the center is an unchanged constant value. Hence there is no relative motion of clocks that could cause a special relativistic kinematical effect that causes any of the clocks to run slow. Hence the only possible kinematical effect is one due to an absolute motion of the clocks in a absolute reference frame that involves a rotational motion relative to this absolute frame.

Again referencing Wikipedia:
?According to general relativity, another effect comes into play: the slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that speeds the clocks back up. Since the aircraft are flying at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect is more "constant" between the two clocks, but nevertheless it causes a difference in comparison to the clock on the ground.?

(Zitatende)




Lesen Sie bitte weiter ab Seite 17 unter:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker39.pdf



Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe

02.08.2008 10:40 Ekkehard Friebe ist offline Email an Ekkehard Friebe senden Homepage von Ekkehard Friebe Beiträge von Ekkehard Friebe suchen Nehmen Sie Ekkehard Friebe in Ihre Freundesliste auf
 
Neues Thema erstellen Antwort erstellen
Gehe zu:

Powered by Burning Board Lite 1.0.2 2001-2004 WoltLab GmbH