Customer Reviews

Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book has some advanced mathematical material that I cannot comment on.

But from the parts not requiring math, I can say that this book is definitely worth $150 for anyone interested in the "Relativity is wrong" subject.

For those who say that "relativity is proven beyond any doubt," well, you need to look into some of the data: there is convincing evidence that some people have been lying about their results (in some of the most famous experiments, in fact). And anyone who claims that there is experimental evidence for time dilation, well, since NO ONE has EVER "measured" the FLOW of time (clocks do not measure the FLOW of time!!!), that claim has never been directly verified.

This book modifies the Maxwell equations by going the route first proposed by Hertz. These "neo-Hertzian" equations correct the Maxwell equations so that they are invariant to first order. Hence there is no need for the Lorentz transformation or Einstein's relativity, which only provide covariance rather than invariance. Phipps disproves the ad hoc Thomas Precession by experiment. He also delves into Cauchy's discrete infinite processes, Shannon's axioms on entropy, and quantum electrodynamics.

Phipps' writing style is absolutely superb. You might mistake him for an English professor rather than the brilliant physicist that he is. Phipps thoroughly debunks Einstein's relativity theories with sharp wit, biting satire, and commentary. He also explains some of the peculiar history behind the development of modern science in the twentieth century.

Would highly recommend it as grounded in the real world. Experiments are done to verify information about the universe, vs. theories which may acquire a life of their own. Phipps has a good sense of humor also, as in his example of Thomas Precession. That is, why does the rim of a spinning disk not lag with respect to its interior as by special relatively? My interest especially is in the invariant versus covariant Maxwell equations, described well by Phipps.

The book was loaned to me and I just glanced at the chapter on electromagnetism. Essentially, he says that Maxwell's equations are not invariant because they use partial derivatives. The use of total derivatives makes it invariant across all frames of reference and he claims that Hertz had corrected that in his equations.

The book has major sections on relativity, mechanics, mathematics and statistics. I would say it will become a classic just like "A History of Aether Theories".

I will definitely order my own copy of the book!

To preface my review, I should note that this book is one of the genre of books that purports to explain why Einstein, and virtually all of modern physics that follows, is in error. This should, I think, be quite sufficient to give the reader a sense of the likely quality and veracity of its arguements.

I should further note that I have merely read the book; I have not studied it, nor argued with it. Both of the latter are necessary to a proper understanding of it, I believe, so I review it under some handicap.

That said, I think that this book does have quite a bit to offer readers like me, who are of the opinion that modern physics is almost certainly correct (and therefore that Phipps is almost certainly incorrect). The book is relatively well-written, and most of the arguments and derivations are presented quite clearly. One might even call them seductive -- they are very easy to believe to be correct, even when one is certain that there must be a mistake somewhere.

(Yes, there are some clear and obvious mistakes, as "A Reader" points out in another review. I do not recall them being as pervasive as claimed, nor completely detrimental to the arguments, however -- the real errors are much deeper and more subtle. And, yes, the language is at times excessively arrogant; I found this more amusing than offputting, and there _are_ some good points hiding in the prickliness.)

Thus, having read it once, I am quite certain that -- should I ever find myself needing to have a deep and intuitive understanding of general relativity, such that I can see how it works directly rather than needing to think through the equations -- I need merely spend two weeks with Phipps's book, a pen, and a large pile of scratch paper, and determine for myself exactly where and how his arguments are incorrect, and why the things that he claims are contradictions in relativity are, in fact, consistent with each other. This is what I mean by arguing with the text, and it should serve to provide an understanding on a level that merely reading an accurate textbook would be unlikely to provide.

On a different level, this book may well be of use to science fiction authors who are not looking for _accurate_ science, but are instead looking for convincing but inaccurate science that allows for loopholes that real-world science appears to have unhelpfully omitted (such as faster-than-light travel). Take it all with a grain of salt, and an understanding that it's as good as fictional, and there may well be useful things in it.

The book contains self-contradictory logic, mathematical mistakes, experimental errors, ad hominum arguements, and deceptive rhetoric. It is the work of a phony with some chip on his shoulder against scientists and mathematicians. The following are some highlights; the educated reader can find an error at every other sentence.
Poor experimental procedures, and poor data analysis, are described in chapter 8.
The determination of an observer-velocity dependence of the speed of light using slit interference is based on incorrect understanding of experimental science. Several experiments are described where the data does not fit his theories, and he disregards them arbitrarily due to the presence of vibration. One of the experiments happens to have the results that the author (TEP) apparently wants and on the basis that scientists are stupid the author interprets this one experiment as proof of his theories. The other experiments show that there is vibration passing through the table or its supports, but TEP ignores the evidence. He merely states that he built an invar frame to stop error due to thermal drift and vibration. However, the invar frame that is describes would propagate vibration better than the table itself. Furthermore, he uses an arguement that only applies if dozens of fringes are allowed into the aperture of the detector. Careful reading indicates that there was only one fringe in the aperture of his detector. This would make it very sensitive to vibration. Some of the math described (verbally, with no equations) implies that the phase delay of the reference is equal to the phase shift of the interference fringes. This reviewer speculates that the two were set equal to each other because they both have units of angle (e.g., degrees) although the physical meaning of each phase is different.
An experiment is described to show with a movable grating that there is is shift in frequency due to the earths motion. It is similar to the first experiment described, with an additional diffraction grating. The same disregard for vibration is shown as in the interference experiment. However, he makes additiona errors here. He does not calculate the wavelength resolution of his system, which was probably too large to measure the Doppler shift. By "probably," I means that I assummed his optics table wasn't as big as a house. TEP "disproves" special relativity by analyzing his results assumming that the wavefronts are circular in all frames. His assumption is described in more detail in previous chapters (that he does not cross reference) as "neo-Hertzian theory." However, special relativity shows that the wavefronts are elliptical in all reference frames except that where the source is stationary. Thus, he assumed that relativity was wrong even before he "disproved" relativity. The results that he describes in this experiment are easily shown to be equivalent to Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle. Finally, he says, "I suppose that a physicist would explain the results in terms of virtual particles. Well, quantum mechanics is all magic as far as I am concerned." Many physicists, including myself, would not say that. Furthermore, why should anyone care what TEP is concerned with.
He describes an experiment using a spinning shaving head to show that that the Thomas Precession equation is incorrect. However, he misinterprets the data. He says that "there are some explanations that the equations used are modified due to torque, which is nonsense." It turns out that he used equations by Weinberg that have been shown incorrect by theorists due to the right-angle lever equations of special relativity. The presence of nonzero viscosity or nonzero elasticity means that the disk won't follow the Thomas Precession equations, even if special relativity was correct. He ignores synchrotron radiation measurements of Thomas Precession, and keeps repeating (incorrectly) that there is no other proof of the Thomas Precession described other than in atomic spectroscopy. Actually, I think that this experiment is cool from an engineering point of view. It could have been used to model the rotary wing of helicopters. He apparently doesn't understand aerodynamics sufficiently well to think of this.
The last chapter, on theoretical thermodynamics, is incorrect. He tries to analyze entropy using the concept of information and explicitly ignores the forces between atoms. The result is a new form of thermodynamics where the existence of a frictional force is impossible.
He makes frequency theoretical errors. However, these are based on a few incorrect assumptions repeated throughout the book.
1) There are no compressable materials. In other words, the only solids are perfectly rigid bodies, and the only fluids are incompressible. For example, he assumes that the speed of sound in a paper clip (chapter 8 again) is infinite.
2) Every rule in high school trigonometry is incorrect and useless. For example, he seems to think any physical quantity in units of degrees equals any other quantity with units of degrees. He ignores trigonometric identities, instead relying on incorrectly drawn diagrams to prove his point. His drawings are neither drawn to scale or consistent with the experiments described.
3) There are no forces in relativity. In fact, that covariance means force-free. In actuality, Einstein used the word "force" in his first relativity paper about 7 times.
Interestingly, Weinberg made a big blupper stating that in an article written in American Journal of physics. I will forgive Weinberg this one error, which was pointed out by Neuman in a letter to American Journal of physics.
4) The is no such thing as the limit of a function, since it has not been formally analyzed. He ignores advanced calculus concepts based on inequalities, and elementary topology, where this concept is analyzed from a logical standpoint.
5) All forces are in a direction parallel or antiparallel to the velocity of the object. Thus, he ignores the force on an electric charge due to a magnetic field.
6) He redefines words in science to fit his preconceived notions. For example, he does not use a mathematical definition of covariance.
7) He never refers or describes a force diagram.
His errors are covered in a shower of insults, sarcasm, and self aggrandization. The reviewer conjectures that he has a serious learning defect, and is bitter about scientists who do not have one. The reviewer also conjectures that he is a low grade technician.
Therefore, I think that this is a stupid and misleading book.