Einstein's
Relativity on fire again.
by John Doan
Everyone can easily say that Einstein's theory is the most beautiful theory in modern physics which has revolutionized human's knowledge about time and space. But how many can truly understand it? Do all our scientists now understand it? No. For the first time this book discloses this awful truth together with evidence that many books supporting relativity written recently by well-known professors, physicists yet give completely opposite interpretation about the theory. If those professors who claim they understand Einstein still misinterpret his theory and cannot agree with each other, then how about us, the general non-scientific readers?
General readers don't always understand scientists, and that's absolutely ok. When Einstein's theory was first announced, our scientists didn't believe it, and therefore neither did we. But 90 years have passed, hundred books written, millions students learnt in uni, all our scientists have confirmed Einstein's theory, and therefore we also believe it too. We have to. We have to trust our scientists, though we don't always understand them. For instance, who on Earth knows how Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 come from? If we ask any non-scientific reader, no one would ever know. We wouldn't even care if Einstein wrote E = mc3 instead, as long as our scientists agreed with it. Yes, as long as our scientists agreed with it.
But do our scientists always agree about time dilation and space curvature 90 years now after Einstein's first publication? Has any one ever known or heard or read a book "Has Hawking Erred?" written by Gerhard Kraus recently in 1993 claiming Einstein's space-time as a major fallacy unique in scientific history?
Kraus made several interesting points in his book.
"For a long time I had harboured doubts about certain mind-boggling views held by Einstein and his modern successors: that time can slow down, come to a standstill and even turn backwards; that three dimensional voluminal space can accommodate additional space dimensions, one of them being time, resulting in space-time; and that voluminal space and time can warp and bend."
"While appreciating Hawking's book (A Brief History of Time) and his other admirable contributions to modern physics, I believe that I have found several specific contradictions in his text space-time concept. This concept was adopted by Einstein several decades ago and has since become something of a sacred cow to most physicists the world over. Despite such universal acclaim, I have become convinced that by uncritically accepting Einstein's space-time theories, which play such a large part in theoretical physics, Hawking, in common with other physicists, may be perpetuating a major fallacy unique in scientific history."
Of course Kraus' argument is not strong enough to defeat Einstein, but it still raises a serious question about the relativity's full acceptance in scientific community even now.
Even Professor Paul Davies, in his book "About Time" in 1995 happened to mention about public skepticism towards Einstein's theory. He wrote,
"... Among the usual stack of letters, circulars and memoranda are three fat manuscripts sent to me from private addresses: England, California and Western Australia. All came unsolicited and accompanied by letters that start out in the same vein: 'Although I am not a scientist ...' I skim the pages of these manuscripts warily. Like many colleagues, I receive several of them each month. Today they are similar in style and content. Two have some mathematics, handwritten, at pre-highschool level. The message is the same: 'Einstein got it wrong; I've got it right. Please help me to tell the world.' Close scrutiny reveals the authors' deep anxieties about time. How can something so basic to our experience be relative? They protest. That would surely lead to paradox. Something must be wrong. The manuscripts contain complicated diagrams showing observers whizzing about with clocks, and agonized questions about whose time is right and who is being misled."
Of course Prof. Davies' book is to support and explain Einstein's theory. But the only answer I got after reading his book is the same statement he wrote in the preface, "Nevertheless, you may well be even more confused about time after reading this book than you were before. That's all right; I was more confused myself after writing it."
But that's not all right. If Prof. Davies cannot understand it, who else can? If a well-known physicist writing a book to explain why Einstein has changed completely our understanding about time and space, is still confused about it, then how are not we? Another Professor Herbert Dingle wrote "Science at the Crossroads" in 1972 and made such this outrageous comment about Albert Einstein, "It is impossible to believe that men with the intelligence to achieve the near miracles of modern technology could be so stupid."
This is 1997, and can you believe all that? I don't. At first, I thought all scientists have now understood and agreed about Einstein's theory, so we, the general readers who are too busy with other business and don't always have enough scientific knowledge to understand the theory, have to trust our scientists and accept it. Yes, if that's the case, we all would happily follow them. But at a second look, after reading about 20 books about Einstein's relativity, the only thing I understand is no one truly understands it.
This work is my own challenge to Einstein, a challenge of an ordinary person who never accepts the superior greatness out of fear, but only by understanding. And here is my answer at the end of my book. If anything is a matter of degree, Einstein's relativity could be 97% right, and 3% wrong. And that tiny 3% wrong is made of these three statements: