Preston Guynn

Dear Preston,

Thanks for your long but, erudite, very interesting, thoughtful, highly stimulating and scholarly comment. I hope this sets the standard and the quality for the future discussion in this forum on a critique of Albert Einstein; on my views and your works based on Thomas Precision in particular; and physics and philosophy as disciplines in general.

I have thought and written about Einstein, since he is the most influential thinker of modern times. Three of my booklets relating to Einstein, the theories of relativity and the status of modern theoretical physics are now being distributed through Amazon. Reviews of these from a leftist website in USA are available at the two following links:

http://maydaybookstore.blogspot.com/2017/12/thephilosophy-of-space-time-whence-come.html

http://maydaybookstore.blogspot.com/2019/12/its-not-all-relative.html

You may also be interested in the following ResearchGate forum initiated by me and is still running; since April, 2, 2018 and is still active. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

In my view, Einstein stands in the same relation to natural science as Immanuel Kant was to philosophy. Both were outraged at the breakdown of causality (the formal logic since Aristotle), with the quantum phenomena in science and with David Hume in philosophy. Kant however, was very consistent in rejecting the objective reality as an unknowable thing-in-itself, warned philosophy to abate all claims of knowledge of the reality and fabricated his subjective idealism and “logical categories" from thought and sense perceptions, that must be imposed on this unwieldy objective reality to deal with it!.

Einstein by contrast used idealized mathematics as his “logical categories”; but mixed-up the real and ideal in an arbitrary and very inconsistent way, whenever and wherever it was convenient for him. This has given rise to all sorts of confusion among the whole generations of physicists for more than a century; who engage in impotent and endless medieval type scholastic debate on thought experiments, which lead them nowhere, Einstein himself realized it when he said, “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, NewYork, 1961).

The most negative side of Einstein is that his contradictory and confusing positions on many issues are opportunistically and selectively used by the official science of the present ruling class with impunity and to their advantage. The recent “discoveries” of “gravitational waves” and “black holes” are claimed in the name of Einstein, where Einstein was clearly opposed to such claims. For example in a publication in Annals of Mathematics in 1939, Einstein concluded, "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

In any case, I very warmly welcome your participation in this forum and look forward to enlightening discussion from you and others on these issues.

Best regards, Abdul

The first postulate precludes any chance of relativistic differences in inertial frames in relative motion. It is properly applied to the opposing realms of mechanics and electrodynamics, where one is the negative inverse (inertia) of the other. 1/1-c^2/v^2)^1/2 signifies the reciprocal of the conservation law in the denominator. "Mass" increases in their proper frames, are Newtonian inelastic collisions, precisely equal to the relativistic equation. Einstein becomes Newton and a vast area for exploration, including anti-gravity is available.

See: https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/7971

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul,

You are a real poet. Poets have intuition and imagination. And you still have a critical mind. It is now very easy for us to criticize A. Einstein. But I would not treat him too harshly. Yes, he was a positivist, admirer of Sophia Blavatsky and Mach. He interpreted the formulas with his conclusions, which did not correspond to physical reality. Reducing size, slowing down time, curving space are myths. They say that he canceled the world ether. This is not quite so.

In 1910, in the paper "Principle of relativity and its consequences" Einstein wrote: "It is impossible to create a satisfactory theory, not abandoning the existence of a medium filling all space." Later, in the paper "Field and the theory of relativity" (1920) and "About the Field" (1924), Einstein changed his mind about the existence of the ether, but this fact is little known and did not affect the ratio of to ether by the majority of theoretical physicists.

Adoption of the proportionality body mass of its energy was also not supported by the physical model, as did J. J. Thompson back in 1903 related to the mass of the field. In future issues of accelerated motion and gravitation have been the subject of general relativity. Trying to to agree the principle of equivalence with the invariance of four-dimensional interval, Einstein came to the idea of depending on the geometry of space-time from matter. Thus was given the status of a physical object four-dimensional space-time of Minkowski.

In later works, Einstein explained that he excluded from consideration only "absolutely stationary space", attributing space-time property of the physical environment: the duration and extent. The properties of the physical space-time and ether are identical, so that you can abandon of the term "ether" as unnecessary. The last 40 years of his life, Einstein spent searching unified field theory. He wrote:

"In summary, we can say that the general theory of relativity space gives physical properties. Thus, in this sense ether (field) exists... It's a tough four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity has to some extent a fixed three-dimensional analogue of the field of Lorenz...Thus, Descartes was not so far from the truth when believed that the existence of empty space should be avoided...The elementary particles of matter in nature is a thickening of the electromagnetic field...".

To Einstein's honor, he doubted the validity of his ideas until the end of his life. Here is what he wrote in his declining years:“It seems to everyone that in quiet solitude I look at the results of my life. But everything looks very different in the vicinity. There is not a single concept regarding which I would be sure that it would remain unshakable, and I’m not convinced if I’m at all the right way ... "

In the morning on all sails

A young man at sea seeks, -

In the broken boat at night

The old man will return to the harbor ...

You ask what will happen to Einstein’s theory? Followers are always more radical than founders. Hundreds of theorists need to count. Let the model be wrong - it doesn’t matter! When in Princeton A. Einstein said that ether exists, the young professors silently twisted a finger at the temple behind him.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

The "wrong turn" occurred by deviating from the Newtonian path starting with the wave interpretation of Young's experiment. Science should have continued with Newton's speculations in"Opticks". The later experiment showing electromagnetism and thermodynamics should have us in a much better position to understand the universe. We are up and dead end with many observations and ad hoc pronouncements. We need a new re-start.

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Einstein was the towering figure of 20th century natural science and I do not dismiss this fact so lightly. My assertion is that Einstein through his mathematical idealism and by rejecting the (dialectical) chance and necessity in the quantum phenomena, took physics from its materialist basis to the thought world of idealism and scholasticism. My main complain is that unlike the consistent subjective idealism of Kant, Einstein very arbitrarily mixed up the “real”/material/physical with the “ideal” and vice versa; resulting in enormous confusion that modern physics suffers from. Einstein realized it himself when he said, “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, NewYork, 1961).

The worst part of this is that Einstein was very inconsistent , asserting contrary view points whenever it suited him, porting a façade of a mystic; that allowed Anglo-American led monopoly capitalism to use his name and influence in theoretical natural science, in its struggle for dominance against its capitalist rival (later turned fascist) Germany on the one hand and against revolutionary Bolshevism among the Western working and the less developed countries of the Eastern Part.

Einstein opportunistically relished the attention and the status given to him as the icon of natural science, while monopoly capitalism was opportunistically turning his theories of relativity into ruling ideas, even in cases when it was being done against his theories and against his own views. The so-called “gravitational wave” and “Black Hole” are cases in point. As I discussed in my comment above, official physics is claiming the “discovery” of "Black Holes” , when Einstein in a published paper dismissed the possibility of "Black Holes” even in theory! Official physics uses as much of Einstein’s theories, views, opinion etc., as is useful for them and throws the rest in the dustbin of history. Einstein never voiced any opposition to this manipulation and misuse of his theories and ideas by official physics.

Einstein however, lamely and just a year before his death expressed grave doubt about the fundamental premise of his theories of relativity in a letter (1954) to his friend Michelle Besso, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

But official physics cared very little about such strong but negative views of Einstein!

Regards, Abdul

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul,

I thank You for your wide erudition. Please advise me on the term "space". Newton said that this is a scene on which the action of nature is played out. Leibniz considered space not an independent object, but a form of coordination of bodies and events. Engels believed that space is a form of existence of matter: space does not exist outside of matter and independently of it. Einstein translated space into the category of physical objects: space can be curved.Our forum also believes that space can change its properties, for example, under the influence of mass. What do you think about this?

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

John Hodge

JH> [The "wrong turn" occurred by deviating from the Newtonian path starting with the wave interpretation of Young's experiment. Science should have continued with Newton's speculations in"Opticks"].

This is not true. Newton’s corpuscular theory of light never lost importance in physics even with the wave model. It is now even reinforced after the recognition of the photoelectric effect and the quantum phenomena (QED). So, the wave model did not cause any significant deviation. The wave model is deliberately promoted and sustained, because it fits in well with the “continuous field” (idealist) model of objective reality and the mathematical idealism of Einstein; which were/are invoked to deny quantum discreteness, uncertainty etc.

The main problem for theoretical physics lies in the realm of astrophysics and cosmology. Newton’s misinterpretation and distortion of Kepler’s empirical and phenomenological laws, incorporation of a “First Impulse” from the God of theology and the retention the idealist notions of perfect circular paths of the heavenly bodies etc., of Ptolemaic Epicycles; led to the flowering of the mystical and idealist fantasies of Einsteinian “physics”:

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy, Thanks for your kind words. I can never hope to “advice” you! Nor can I give a detailed exposé of my views in a comment like this. I made some publications on space and time however; and can only refer to those here. The following article would be a start: Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

I also wrote a booklet with the same title as the above article, but unfortunately, is available only through Amazon. You can get a preview of the booklet from the following link: https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Best regards, Abdul

Abdul Malek

Dear Abdul,

I read your article "The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh “Matter” and “Motion”?" with great interest. I fully agree with the criticism of GR. However, let me ask you three questions.

1. You write:

" Through the incorporation of complex fields; Dirac could demonstrate that this field – the quantum vacuum, exists as virtual space in parallel to ―real‖ space; where virtual matter/antimatter particle pairs exists as ransient species in eternal motion of coming into being and passing out of existence. The rules of quantum dynamics allow for the transition of virtual matter/antimatter particles to become ―real‖ (existing) particles and the ―real‖ ones becoming ―virtual‖ ones also, as an eternal process."

I am sorry, but Dirac could not demonstrate anything. He wrote equations only. It was game of brain. Do you really imagine the virtual world of Dirac as physical reality? I believe that the virtual world is a complete analogy of the "kingdom of heaven" in religions.

2. You wrote:

"To reinterpret Hegel; the real world exists as the dialectical ―unity of the opposites‖ of its virtual counterpart of space and time; which in turn are the dialectical opposite of each other. The virtual reality is manifested by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum as particle/antiparticle pairs, which continuously pop in and out of existence as ―Being-Nothing‖ of the logical first as well as the last dialectical contradiction."

Is there any experimental evidence for virtual particles and their interconversion into particles? What is the mechanism of this movement? Due to what energy is the particle born from "nothing"? This phenomenon I would call "Small Bangs."

3. You wrote:

"The dynamics of space-time-matter-motion, therefore, is a dialectical process mediated by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. Herein also lies the secret of the origin of the material world."

Einstein considered the basis of all ether (field). You called it idealism. Now you take an unknown vacuum as the basis of the world - call it materialism? Am I wrong? Please, do not be offended by my questions!

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

PS

It seems to me that all issues of gravity, dark matter, fundamental interactions, particle structure, etc. are an interpretation of already known data. I looked at everything a little differently - and the world structure became clear to me.

The wrong turn was kust after Newton and was a turn from Newton. Science should have continued with Newton's speculations rather than wave explanation of Young's experiment or in the energy (LaGrange and Hamiltonian) transformation - should have continued with the force transformation.