Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Intertial & Non-Intertial Frames


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 209 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:46:29 AM PDT
Myself. Not literally. Einstein himself agreed he sometimes made mistakes. He even published a wrong version of the field equations of general relativity before he got it right. And of course there was the cosmological constant, but he put it in because at the time he published his field equations of GR it was not known that the universe was expanding, so he thought he needed to have a stable universe. Hubble didn't publish his findings until 1929.

Einstein was without a doubt the greatest physicist of the 20th century, and has had no peers except Newton. The famous Soviet physicist Lev Landau had a logarithmic scale on which he rated contemporary physicists, and Einstein stood alone at the top with a rating of 0.5. Any one of Einstein's lesser accomplishments would rank him among the top physicists, let alone relativity and early quantum theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 12:35:12 PM PDT
How about this?

http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

Am I arguing that he wasn't? (I don't think so!) Einstein's mistakes--all by themselves--are probably more generative of good science than any 5 other people I can think of. (Although I have a particular bias towards a guy named Thomas Young... No relation, as far as I know.)

These are mistakes on a very high level--ones that few people are even capable of making, because they're too stupid or cowardly to think at the periphery of knowledge, where the footing is not any better than quicksand.

Much like Columbus' mistake in calculating the dimensions of the earth. Which, by the way, was an error he took to his deathbed, in spite of everything. He also maintained that he hadn't discovered a new world, but rather, merely a new route to India, as he intended. Thank goodness for stubbornness, is all I've got to say! (In order to make his estimate of a 16,000 mi. diameter work, he eventually concluded that the earth was very, very pear-shaped.)

Any genius who is afraid of making mistakes isn't going to amount to much, in the end. When he came home from grammar school, Feynman's mom is reported to have asked him "Did you make any good mistakes today?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 12:39:37 PM PDT
Anyway, the idea that his 1905 paper is free from error would be an error.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 12:46:33 PM PDT
Any more details? Lots of particles interact in lots of ways. No others impart mass to their brethren, as far as I know.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 3:10:30 PM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/higgs_boson.html

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 9:00:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 9:14:54 AM PDT
D. Colasante says:
I'm curious (anyone). Considering Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe, when the expanding balloon analogy is used, how do you interpret the balloon surface? Do you consider the surface as 3-D space or 4-D spacetime (or something else?)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:23:46 AM PDT
I think it's usually considered 3-D space but technically should be considered 4-D spacetime.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:55:42 AM PDT
John Donohue says:
//Randall R Young says:
Anyway, the idea that his 1905 paper is free from error would be an error.//

I have 3 of Einstein's 1905 papers, including "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?" (I also have the Brownian motion paper).

I would be able to check your claim that the two relativity papers had errors. The "Does the Inertia..." paper derives E=mc2 and it is not in error; it does use a hybrid between classical and relativistic physics that was improved upon but it is still totally valid. Not sure where you are getting your information.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 11:03:52 AM PDT
I already gave two sources in this thread. Do you need me to repost them?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 11:05:26 AM PDT
Thanks, Jack!

Anything slightly more technical? (Or should I be afraid to ask?)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 11:05:58 AM PDT
You can get all his 1905 papers in the book "Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics". The only thing comparable to it in the history of science would be Newton's Principia and Darwin's "On the Origin of Species".

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 11:36:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 11:55:17 AM PDT
JD:

In my opinion, relativity is a classical theory, in all its forms.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 11:44:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 11:54:57 AM PDT
JD:

Here's another one:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lorentz3.htm

[Do you have reason to consider these to be themselves in error? Other than hero worship, I mean--which Einstein is on record as being quite suspicious of, himself.

"To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself" ~Einstein, Aphorism for a friend, 1930

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:00:32 PM PDT
John Donohue says:
//You can get all his 1905 papers in the book "Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics"//

I have all but the photoelectric effect in pdf and I also have the GR paper. I agree that they are epoch making. I am not aware that the relativity papers have "mistakes" -- at least mistakes that make any difference to the conclusion of the paper.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:08:41 PM PDT
John Donohue says:
//Here's another one:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lorentz3.htm//

I don't hero worship Einstein. He made several serious blunders, the most disturbing to me was his rude dismissal of Friedman's discovery of the instability of the universe. But this article you link to seems bogus to me. I don't have time to check his claims against the paper but I note that his notion that using the terms "v + c" and "v - c" violates the invariance of the speed of light is just mistaken. If you merely look at the formula for the Doppler shift you will see the exact same formulation. I note the guy has an MS in physics -- and no reputation outside his web site. You may hero worship THomas Smid if you want and believe his claims uncritically, but I will not do that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:33:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 12:49:08 PM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
Thomas seems to be an utter quack. I think Mowie might adore him.

A not so flattering discussion of a handful (edit: buckloads) of his inanities:
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1282187575/all

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:35:08 PM PDT
I'm not either.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:49:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 10:45:45 AM PDT
<<...at least mistakes that make any difference to the conclusion of the paper.>>

I never made that claim. Only that there *were* errors. Their significance is another matter entirely, as well as whether there is a consensus about them. The fact is, I am not the only person who thinks there are errors. In fact, the edition of the paper in question I have is published by Fermilab** (not an organization noted for its hack-dome, as far as I know), and gives several footnotes referring to errors both in the original, and in various translations--some mathematical, some typos, and some conceptual, et. al.

It disappoints me to see arguments at the level of "that guy's PhD is not in physics, proper"--especially in that his PhD is in a closely related sub-field, like astronomy. On June 30th, 1905, Einstein's PhD was only one month old. If it had been the case that he'd published his paper 2 months earlier, would you then argue what a quack the guy was, and dismiss it out of hand? [At the time, Einstein had no 'street cred', either.]

[**Note to any readers from the future: I subsequently realized that 'Fermilab' was actually a misread of 'fourmilab', as in 'fourmicidae', the latin for 'ants'. Ooops!]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:52:22 PM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
It may take an education in physics/math to recognize the quacks. Thomas is a quack sure and sound. Just read the link I've posted.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:07:18 PM PDT
Re fazakas, 6-12 8:38 AM: "Most frames we are familiar with ... are non-inertial." True; in addition to Coriolis arising from earth's rotation, there is gravity. For some cases, this matters, and is taken into account; for others, it doesn't.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:31:37 PM PDT
John Donohue says:
//D. Colasante says:
I'm curious (anyone). Considering Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe, when the expanding balloon analogy is used, how do you interpret the balloon surface? Do you consider the surface as 3-D space or 4-D spacetime (or something else?)//

The balloon is just the best analogy that anyone can actually envision. In fact, the surface has to correspond to 3D space -- our universe would be represented by 2D spots on the balloon's surface. This analogy confuses some of the lay people trying to follow it because they assume that the middle of the balloon is accessible in some sense. As far as we know, if the universe has the geometry of a 3-sphere (this means a sphere with a 3D surface) we have no way to reach the 4D innards of that sphere.

In fact, there is no experimental or mathematical reason to think that the universe is even finite. All one can say with the current physics (unless something has slipped by me) is that the universe was very hot and dense 13.7 bn years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:35:01 PM PDT
Thanks, and you're right, he has lots of duck calls going off. How about the footnotes at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Are these also wrong? (I notice it also comes up at "The Einstein Project")

Among my many errors, I notice also that I misread "fourmilab" as "fermilab". I really need to get some glasses!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 2:13:51 AM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
I'm not disputing your assertion that there may be mistakes in Einstein's papers. I could care less actually if it were true. I don't learn from original papers. I think the archaic language/math is bound to confuse. I prefer mathematical language to be modern and rigorous. And I do know that you can derive the Lorentz transformations, and infer E=mc^2, in a perfectly logical manner (acceptable to me, that is), regardless of the mistakes in Einstein's original papers. But that wasn't what the discussion was about anyway...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 10:33:13 AM PDT
Then we agree. And I agree that these are all trivialities, and that they are off topic.

So, I am leaving any further discussion of it to af, who dearly wants me to 'pope-ify' Dr. Einstein, against Einstein's better judgment.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 10:52:31 AM PDT
Einstein was God!

:)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  209
Initial post:  Jun 12, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions