Why do people want to disprove Einstien?

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2006-11-26 01:34pm

Recently here in Arizona, yet another crackpot has come out of the woodwork with a book proclaiming how Einsteins theories are wrong, and magically he and he alone can prove it.

As an aside, here is one of several leeters he has sent to the Editors of the "Arizona Republic"

Regarding the Nov16 article "Disproving Einstein harder than it looks," and the letters reacting to the article.

Observations of stars moving away from us at distances far greater than would be possible unless they are moving at speeds far greater than the speed of light disproves the theory that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

The only way Einstein could be right is if the Earth were the ceter of the universe.

He ignors the fact that you could leave Earth, slow down, which - if his theory were correct -- make time speed up for the traveler in a ship relative to the time on Earth. This would have to be true because there is no starting point for the effect of movement on relative.

So, if you where to come to a complete stop in Space, you would die of old age instantly, but according to Einstein, time cannot exist without movement.

This is called a paradox, so much for Einstein!.

Of course this is nothing new.. It seems many people have decided that Einstein, perhaps the finist thinking of the past century... Is just plain wrong... What causes this? Why do people feel the urge to disprove something that is widly accepted as fact by almost everyone?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-11-26 01:37pm

It is science to try and disprove a proposed hypothesis through rigorous testing and experimenting. That is normal. What isn't normal, is the way these people take it as an insult that Einstein is given any respect and that he happened to be right on just about everything he gave to the world of science. It's not unlike a fundie mentality to try and show Darwin up, if only because they hate his idea, not because they really want to test how strong the theory of evolution is.

Unless these people have a greatly more apt replacement for the theories of relativity, say, then they're really not going to fool anyone.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-11-26 02:02pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote: Why do people want to disprove Einstien?

Because they are jealous? Anyway, didn't Einstein build his famous Relativity Theory on earlier theories and gained access to them by working in a patent office (as defaming rumours suggest)?

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-11-26 02:04pm

The funny thing is that Einstein isn't treated as some sort of infallible authority in physics. After the 1920s, he didn't make much lasting contribution to science, mostly due to his refusal to accept quantum mechanics ("God doesn't play dice").

That's a total antithesis to the fundie mindset. We can respect and admire someone for things he did right, while rejecting things that he did get wrong.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-26 02:05pm

Big Orange wrote:
Crossroads Inc. wrote: Why do people want to disprove Einstien?
Because they are jealous? Anyway, didn't Einstein build his famous Relativity Theory on earlier theories and gained access to them by working in a patent office (as defaming rumours suggest)?

What?

Even if that IS true, what does it matter? Ever heard about basing theories on stuff proven before?

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-11-26 02:07pm

Ace Pace wrote: What?

Even if that IS true, what does it matter? Ever heard about basing theories on stuff proven before?

Yes, exactly, scientific progress is successfull building on things that already existed before and Einstein is not the only guy who contributed to world science, merely one of the most promoted.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-11-26 02:08pm

Because relativity is basically an affront to everything you can see and smell and hear with your own body. It is intuitively wrong, and that really bothers a person.

Mind you, relativity sure appears to be a good model for reality. It's still contrary all human instinct and direct measurement, though.

Isana Kadeb · Post by **Isana Kadeb** » 2006-11-26 02:38pm

Howedar wrote:Because relativity is basically an affront to everything you can see and smell and hear with your own body. It is intuitively wrong, and that really bothers a person.

So why don't people pick on quantum mechanics to the same degree? It certainly seems far more absurd to me. I mean, "the cat is both dead and alive"!?!? Fuck off.

Steel · Post by **Steel** » 2006-11-26 02:45pm

Howedar wrote:Because relativity is basically an affront to everything you can see and smell and hear with your own body. It is intuitively wrong, and that really bothers a person.

Mind you, relativity sure appears to be a good model for reality. It's still contrary all human instinct and direct measurement, though.

Instinct, yes. Direct measurement, no.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-11-26 03:44pm

The reason some people try to disprove Einstein is, to put it simple, that they don't understand his theories. They want to understand the world, but at the same time they don't want to work too hard, so they invent their own reality.

Isana Kadeb wrote:So why don't people pick on quantum mechanics to the same degree?

They can't do that. Usually they need quantum mechanical jargon to technobabblise their immortal souls. Besides, quantum mechanics is mysterious and "no-one really understands any of it".

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2006-11-26 04:11pm

Maybe it has something to do with the rather depressing things relativity theory has to say about humanity's chances of reaching the stars (in something less than decades or centuries). There are parts of it I wish were wrong.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-11-26 04:17pm

Actually, there's a very simple reason: Einstein is simply the most famous physicist ever. It's the same reason that people criticise Darwin and not Wallace, even they have had equal roles in developing evolutionary theory. They also miss out on criticising others who have had crucial role in the development of evolution, such as Mendel, simply because they have not heard of them.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2006-11-26 04:32pm

What's especially annoying is that the hacks who want to "prove Einstein wrong" never present a more accurate model of the universe. The goal of science is never to "prove someone wrong," but to represent the universe in a more accurate way. Is Einstein completely right? Given a number of inconsistencies and some new legit theories that may more accurately describe things (quantum mechanics, say) - it is very likely his model is seriously flawed. Its value, however, is not in its truth, but in its ability to be implemented. Relativity helped us understand and manipulate the universe a little better. Until we come up with a better model, who the hell cares if it's "wrong?"

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-11-26 04:38pm

Not "wrong" most likely incomplete. There have been attempts at unifying theories, and from serious scientists, who unlike those pricks do not run around screaming "disprove einstien" but rather work to unify Eistein and quantum theories.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-11-26 04:49pm

Steel wrote:
Howedar wrote:Because relativity is basically an affront to everything you can see and smell and hear with your own body. It is intuitively wrong, and that really bothers a person.

Mind you, relativity sure appears to be a good model for reality. It's still contrary all human instinct and direct measurement, though.
Instinct, yes. Direct measurement, no.

At speeds and with instruments available to everyone this side of Fermilab, it contradicts direct measurement. Nobody notices time dilation on a flight to Orlando. The idea that time and space are relative is deeply counterintuitive to creatures who evolved on a Newtonian scale.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-11-26 06:56pm

Many reasons.

1) As covered, his answers are deeply, deeply counter-intuitive. And hard to grasp immediately.

2) Prestige. To topple Einstein is to be the next Einstein.

3) FTL. Einstein makes it impossible to do unless you do strange tricks like producing a negative inertial mass.

4) Idiots. There's always some of Number Four.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-11-26 08:10pm

Probably for the same reason various crackpots try and prove the moon landing was a hoax.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-11-26 08:42pm

Steel wrote:
Howedar wrote:Because relativity is basically an affront to everything you can see and smell and hear with your own body. It is intuitively wrong, and that really bothers a person.

Mind you, relativity sure appears to be a good model for reality. It's still contrary all human instinct and direct measurement, though.
Instinct, yes. Direct measurement, no.

Poor phrasing on my part. When I said direct, I meant without instruments. In other words, with one's own unaided senses.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-11-26 08:47pm

Howedar wrote:
Steel wrote:
Howedar wrote:Because relativity is basically an affront to everything you can see and smell and hear with your own body. It is intuitively wrong, and that really bothers a person.

Mind you, relativity sure appears to be a good model for reality. It's still contrary all human instinct and direct measurement, though.
Instinct, yes. Direct measurement, no.
Poor phrasing on my part. When I said direct, I meant without instruments. In other words, with one's own unaided senses.

How to you have measurements without instruments? A simple ruler is an instrument. "Measurements" without instruments are called "guestimates".

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-11-26 08:59pm

I think you know what I mean. Do you think you get some kind of bonus to your nitpick-karma for such semantics?

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2006-11-26 09:13pm

The results of relativity might not be intuitive, but the principle of relativity (or general covariance) that guides it is very intuitive in itself. The requirement that the laws of physics are the same for all observers is the probably most reasonable "radical proposal" ever put forward in physics.

Fun fact: assuming that the metric is in the Minkowski form diag(1,-1,-1,-1) and that the only relevant parameter is energy density, Poisson's equation for the gravitational field takes the form R_{ab} = 8πT_{ab}, where covariant differentiation is forcibly replaced with partial. This is qualitatively similar to the Einstein field equation R_ab = 8π[T_{ab} - 1/2 T^c_c g_{ab}], and shows that Newtonian gravity can be interpreted as an effect of gravitational time dilation.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-11-26 09:47pm

Howedar wrote:I think you know what I mean. Do you think you get some kind of bonus to your nitpick-karma for such semantics?

Sorry, but there is no magic line between a ruler and doppler radar, SEM, radio carbon dating or other high tech measuring devices.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-11-26 09:48pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Howedar wrote:I think you know what I mean. Do you think you get some kind of bonus to your nitpick-karma for such semantics?
Sorry, but there is no magic line between a ruler and doppler radar, SEM, radio carbon dating or other high tech measuring devices.

Of course there is when the entire discussion was based on people's intuitive perceptions, you stupid git.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-11-26 10:16pm

Howedar wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
Howedar wrote:I think you know what I mean. Do you think you get some kind of bonus to your nitpick-karma for such semantics?
Sorry, but there is no magic line between a ruler and doppler radar, SEM, radio carbon dating or other high tech measuring devices.
Of course there is when the entire discussion was based on people's intuitive perceptions, you stupid git.

So the line is based completely on subjectivism. In other words, like I said, there isn't one.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2006-11-26 10:22pm

If you really believe that people have the same intuitive faith in rulers and SEM, if you really believe that you have the same intuitive faith in rulers and SEM, then you and I think very differently indeed.