An Electrical Engineer Explores the Hoax of Einstein's Theories of Relativity

[snopes]

An electrical engineer has explored the Hoax of Einstein's Theories of Relativity in a new book. Einstein and the Emperor's-New-Clothes Syndrome: The Exposé of a Charlatan, by Robert L. Henderson, suggests that Einstein's relativity theories are incorrect

Henderson explains how Einstein's irrational thinking gave birth to his theories of relativity, and how the world blindly accepted them.

Most people do not understand Einstein's theories of relativity, says Henderson. He suggests that the reason for this is because the theories simply are not true.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/4/prweb522531.htm

[snopes]

An electrical engineer has explored the Hoax of Einstein's Theories of Relativity in a new book.

Because an electrical engineer would naturally see the "truth" of relativity that has eluded generations of physicists.

Most people do not understand Einstein's theories of relativity, says Henderson. He suggests that the reason for this is because the theories simply are not true.

If untruths were more difficult to understand than the truth, we'd be out of business.

- snopes

[TrekkerScout]

Henderson has been on this same rant for the last 35 years since he published his first book on the subject Relativity: a Scientific Blunder in 1972 and followed it up with The Return of Common Sense: The Demise of Relativity in 1992. As far as I know, he still isn't being taken seriously.

[HollowMan]

Originally Posted by TrekkerScout

Henderson has been on this same rant for the last 35 years since he published his first book on the subject Relativity: a Scientific Blunder in 1972 and followed it up with The Return of Common Sense: The Demise of Relativity in 1992. As far as I know, he still isn't being taken seriously.

Those titles remind me of the books about God from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

You too can test relativity. Here is someone who did it with his kids:

In September 2005 the kids and I took several very accurate cesium atomic clocks from home and parked 5400 feet up Mt Rainier (the volcano near Seattle) for a full two days. The goal was to see if the clocks actually gained time, even if billionths of a second, as predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. Does gravity really alter time and can this weird phenomenon be detected with a family road trip experiment?

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

You too can test relativity. Here is someone who did it with his kids:

This guy might have taught his kids the math, but unless he had some SERIOUS equpment in the familu van, they woudl not notie the diff of gravity for the 4500 feet they migh have tavelled... just divide 4,500 in earth diameter to get a twinkel and then divide againg by g to see fractions... nithing short of a serious lab clock would measure that and I'm not sure he'd have much more than a clock that got the radio signal -v- cesium appartus.

Warlok

[TrekkerScout]

Originally Posted by Warlok5

nithing short of a serious lab clock would measure that

They were using 3 laboratory grade HP 5071A Cesium Beam Primary Frequency References. Most of the US Naval Observatory's clocks are of this same model.

Originally Posted by Warlok5

This guy might have taught his kids the math, but unless he had some SERIOUS equpment in the familu van, they woudl not notie the diff of gravity for the 4500 feet they migh have tavelled.

Read the article. It first appeared in Eos, but I couldn't get a free link to the article there, but there was the free version I linked to. We are talking nanoseconds. Small, but measurable.

[Singing in the Drizzle]

How many years has scientist been using Einstein's equations and they still work. I think it will take some extraordinary prof to find them wrong now.

[Troberg]

Henderson explains how Einstein's irrational thinking gave birth to his theories of relativity, and how the world blindly accepted them.

I think there was quite a scientific debate about those theories when Einstein presented them, and they have later been closely examined once again with the arrival of the quantum theory. To call it blind acceptance is stretching the truth pretty far.

Rational and forthright, Henderson argues that Einstein's thinking was distorted and that his science and mathematics were severely flawed. While Einstein proposed that time could affect both light and gravity, Henderson instead argues for the Universal Energy Field (UEF) as the medium which transmits light waves and generates gravitational forces.

Sounds like he is going back to the aether theory to me.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Sounds like he is going back to the aether theory to me.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Relativity can't be "wrong", any more than Newton's theories are "wrong" just they disagree with relativity under some circumstances. They're both known to be accurate descriptions of the universe within certain limits. It's not clear yet exactly what the limits of accuracy of relativity are, and so there might be more accurate descriptions available, but aether isn't one of them...

Why isn't he on at general relativity, by the way? You can derive special relativity from general relativity, and general relativity is far more wide ranging and so has more scope for being "wrong". (eta) Perhaps he is - I don't know why I read that as talking only about special relativity. Perhaps because he's an electrical engineer and seems mostly concerned with the propagation of light.

[forcadragons]

Originally Posted by HollowMan

Those titles remind me of the books about God from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

Who is this God person anyway?

[Zachary Fizz]

Originally Posted by snopes

If untruths were more difficult to understand than the truth, we'd be out of business.

- snopes

Aha! So you're in on the conspiracy too!

[Troberg]

Relativity can't be "wrong", any more than Newton's theories are "wrong" just they disagree with relativity under some circumstances. They're both known to be accurate descriptions of the universe within certain limits. It's not clear yet exactly what the limits of accuracy of relativity are, and so there might be more accurate descriptions available, but aether isn't one of them...

Exactly, they are all models which provide a more understandable way of looking at a subset of reality. If they covered all of reality, they would be as complex as reality and not enhance understanding of it.

Example:

Say I want to make a model of an aircraft. I could do, among others, the following:

* A plastic scale model painted like the original. This tells me what it looks like.
* Piles of the different materials in proportion to the amount used in the aircraft. This tells me what it's made of.
* Blueprints. These tells me what I need to build it.
* A mathematical model. This allows me to fly it in a simulator.
* An economical overview of the costs involved to build one.
* Graphs of fuel consumption at different speeds, heights and loads. This tells me the range and how much fuel to bring.
* An overview of the historical importance of the aircraft. This puts it in a historical perspective.

Are these models all correct? Of course they are, but they are also wrong outside their scope. Each plays an important part, and the sum of them allows different specialists to bring the big picture together.

This, of course, does not mean that every model is valid, just that different models are possible. If I were to add "Discovery Channel documentary on the aircraft" to the list, that would just be plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Richard W

Relativity can't be "wrong", any more than Newton's theories are "wrong" just they disagree with relativity under some circumstances.

I remember reading somewhere the phrase, "A wrong theory is never replaced by a right theory. It is only replaced by a theory that is more subtly wrong."

[TrishDaDish]

Makes me think of the Great White North album, where Bob & Doug discuss what E=MC2 means. I can't recall what they thought the "E" stood for, but the "MC" stood for "Mind Clear". Which helps explain this engineer's theory.

[RichardM]

I'm an electrical engineer. Can I write a book claiming that makes me knowledgeable about the entire universe? Will it sell?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by RichardM

I'm an electrical engineer. Can I write a book claiming that makes me knowledgeable about the entire universe? Will it sell?

It might sell well indeed! Packaging and marketing are the keys, not (alas) truth.

Silas ("The Da Vinci UFO; A True Story")

[TrekkerScout]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

I remember reading somewhere the phrase, "A wrong theory is never replaced by a right theory. It is only replaced by a theory that is more subtly wrong."

Once all the wrongs are removed, it becomes a physical law (no longer theory).

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by TrekkerScout

Once all the wrongs are removed, it becomes a physical law (no longer theory).

And even then, real electrical engineers will refuse to trust it, because it was derived in laboratory conditions and doesn't account for heat build-up, vibrations, spikes and dips in the line input, variations in demand in the line output, and "sunspots." ("Sunspots" being the excuse for everything else in the messy "real world" that enables Murphy's Law to be the one iron-clad "law" in all science.)

Silas