(NOTE; a search will list key Internet links, then any relevant areas on this site) ......

Albert Einstein - spacetime relativity theory

Homepage . William Gilbert . Isaac Newton . Rene Descartes ......... Einstein's continuum . Blackbox Einstein ....... General Image Theory

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) developed a theory of the universe based on a 'spacetime continuum', somewhat like Descartes' earlier dead-matter random-push universe with its 'space ether'. Gravity was an integral part of Einstein's spacetime-continuum ether, and light signals somehow propagated through it at a constant speed, the speed of light, with time variable. This relativity theory chiefly came from the relativity of light signals carrying information to human observers and its apparent mathematics, though his theory included no actual electromagnetic actions despite him trying in vain for many years to find a way to include such. Any 'scientist' working for many years doing not one experiment may seem rather odd. His relativity theory was basicly a gravity centered one-force physics though Einstein concluded that his gravitational push-continuum should not push or force but accelerate objects some other way and should also have a second electromagnetic no-push push-continuum work with it but could not prove how. And resolving the multiple-forces issue could maybe also help resolve Newton's failure to prove either a Cartesian push-physics or a Gilbertian action-at-distance physics. But Einstein's theory with its improved maths never really included any fully defined mechanism for gravitational or other actions despite needing it, though he never conceded that it was a poor physics and continued flogging his dead horse. Einstein did his science sit-and-think like Descartes and sold his thinking as 'thought-experiment' which as being based on mathematics he claimed to be logical and necessarily-right or certain if maybe a fiction-physics as 'thought' is really the opposite of experiment-doing. Einstein claimed his theory was both consistent with Newton physics and disproved Newton physics, if on a quite wrong textbook view of his physics as the fake-Newton Cartesian corpuscular push-physics that Newton himself had disproved and not the Gilbertian action-at-distance signal-response physics that Newton actually favoured if not himself proved. Really he was a Physics Philosopher like Descartes and not a Physicist.

Einstein's science theory.

When asked “Did you stand on the shoulders of Newton?”, Einstein strangely replied, “No, I stood on the shoulders of Maxwell” - basically letting slip that he, like most modern physicists, had really only studied a small fraction of physics of special interest to him. But of course James Clerk Maxwell had developed electromagnetic field theory physics, unlike Newton's gravitational physics which in fact more closely related to Einstein's relativity physics. And yet Einstein could not fit electromagnetism into his gravity-centered non-force physics despite needing to derive his claimed constant speed of light from Maxwell's electromagnetism equations as Lorentz had derived his relativistic equations. Einstein clearly just wanted to put down Newton even if what he claimed was in fact rediculous, and It seems that Einstein perversely developed electromagnetic equations for his non-electromagnetic physics, but many at the time saw that maybe all bodies could be considered to be at least in part electromagnetic. Einstein assumed with maybe little evidence that a 'gravity field', or his relativity 'spacetimegravity continuum', should have the maths of an electromagnetic field and it seems it may true in part only. Really there remains a big problem. And really with his 'thought experiments' Einstein stood more on the shoulders of the philosopher Descartes as being more a philosopher of science than a scientist and encouraged a great increase in 'philosopher science' presenting as 'theoretical science' ? While Einstein presented his physics as an explanation physics, it perhaps really was a mathematics-only no-explanation physics like Newton's or at best an explanation physics whose mechanism is unspecified so that users can take it as a push-physics or action-at-distance or other physics ? Einstein did believe that physics should have actual mechanism explanation as Newton did though he failed to provide any, and he unlike Newton did not indicate that alternative explanations might share the same mathematics. If Newton did not publicly commit to any mechanism fearing adverse response from peers, Einstein seems to have failed to commit to any mechanism more from lack of proof for any and both apparently chose to hide these facts. He may have developed a better mathematics but not a better science ? While Newton required that all acceleration requires some force such as Gravity acting, Einstein required that some acceleration as relating to gravity required no force acting but some other way can be produced by his spacetime continuum. He himself seemingly saw that his spacetime continuum could not affect any motion in it by any push mechanism, but he failed to challenge most of the supporters of his theory who have wrongly taken it to have such a mechanism. Einstein's 'spacetime' like other 'fields' seem to be fictional hypotheses that are really not part of science but are philosophy conjectures, as also some other physics ideas like William Gilbert action-at-distance 'signals' or 'effluvia' but not the photons or emr signals that they might be ?

Einstein's relativity physics contained several major internal contradictions that he himself somehow accepted, and some major omissions that he tried and failed to deal with. But his supporters mostly did not really understand his physics and took it as a Cartesian push-physics where matter balls actually pushed a rubber-like continuum. This fake-Einstein physics is still somehow widely supported by a good number of physicists today, though Einstein himself considered that option disproved basically by Newton. So as proven partly by Gilbert and fully by Newton, 1.) all solid, liquid or gas mediums that have push properties show demonstrable drag on the motion of bodies in them not shown in the actual motion of bodies in empty space and 2.) rotations of any such medium cannot move bodies in them matching the actual motions of planetary bodies, nor medium tensions. And if spacetime continuum motion involves no push mechanism, the only non-magic mechanism possible would seem to be some form of Gilbert-Newton signal-response attraction physics mechanism. Einstein's physics was a somewhat anti-Cartesian physics (in at least partly rejecting push-action) though he thought his was an anti-Newton physics since he like most physicists of the time wrongly saw Newton's physics as being fully Cartesian. In reality Einstein's physics is rather more like Newton's than it seems, excepting chiefly that Einstein did take a unique view of time, though for space Newton favoured Gilbert's view of it being actually nothing rather than Einstein's Cartesian-ether-type continuum and he never offered any real disproof of action-at-distance physics theory while he happily used the new radio/tv remote technologies. However the maths of Einstein's physics theory did seem a real advance over Newton's in better predicting more in astronomy. But while still backed mainly by astronomers, some of the major claimed predictions of Einstein's physics like two-way time-travel remain unproven mere theorisings and have perhaps to date really helped only science fiction especially now that multiple-universes have been added to spacetime though still no experiment has really confirmed the existence of either.

Up to Newton's time, and indeed for a good time beyond, physicists and astronomers were almost all agreed that the physical universe followed basically simple laws of behaviour, and that their observations and experiments showed that - though explanation of it was not so fully agreed. But by Einstein's time technology and experiments had become more sophisticated and seemed to be showing that the physical universe followed more complex laws of behaviour, perhaps even defying logic. Little effort was put into trying to develop Newtonian physics, and instead new tricky physics theories were developed - mostly by returning to the early-Kepler method of trying to produce physics theories from mathematics only.

Forcefield theory was already taking a view, more in line with Gilbert and Newton, that force or energy could have forms other than just Descartes mass-in-motion. And Descartes mobile-indiscriminate-push-matter ether was to H.A.Lorentz a rather different 'force-ether' present everywhere and basically immobile-discriminate-push-energy with light being an ether wave, and Einstein at first took that as proven and deduced that a direct consequence of the stationary ether was that the absolute velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light or the observer. Lorentz took the ether as being the ONLY valid non-accelerating 'inertial frame of reference' for light.

The Special Theory of Relativity

By 1905 Einstein had seemingly somehow concluded that the immobile Lorentz ether was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment and that light was not an ether wave, and that any observer frame of reference in which Newton's law of inertia holds for that observer (for some period of time) is an 'inertial frame of reference'. And all observer frames of reference (and only such frames) at rest or moving with constant velocity with respect to a given inertial frame of reference are also inertial frames of reference. An observer could determine that it shared some inertial frame of reference with things that it saw as following Newton's law of inertia.

Thus far is simple Newton, but Einstein concluded that for velocity it requires that, for a common frame of reference if one observer moving at some unknown absolute velocity v fires a projectile at a known relative velocity u₁, and if a second observer absolutely at rest sees the projectile relative velocity as some unknown velocity u then keeping the speed of light as a constant c ;

u₁ = (u-v)/1-(uv/c²)

The unknowns involved prevent this equation from ever actually being directly proved, but this is claimed to have been indirectly proved. The nearest experimental equivalent will normally involve two observers having unknown absolute velocities but a known relative velocity to eachother and known relative projectile velocities. But this 'relativity maths' had been previously developed by FitzGerald and Lorentz from quite different theory.

Einstein in 1905 asserted that all the laws of physics take the same form in any 'inertial frame', including them having the same constant velocity of light relating to time determination with time being a relative variable. This was basically a new alternative to the theory of Irish physicist George FitzGerald, supported by Lorentz, which was then current and had space or distance being a relative variable in motion involving the 'FitzGerald Contraction' rather than Einstein's 'Time Dilation' with time as a relative variable in motion. (earlier physics had taken motion as distance over time with both distance and time fixed.) Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity universe also involved a somewhat new kind of 'force-ether' or 'field' that he called a 'space-time continuum' which worked by 'some unspecified non-pushing mechanism akin to pushing'. Evidence for absolutes being variable, whether space or time, is rather weaker than the extensive firm evidence of relatives being variable as per Gilbert, Doppler and many others. As absolute or relative Motion is Distance moved in a Time, absolute or relative distance or time change is commonly easily viewed as relative motion change. And for a William Gilbert action-at-distance signal-response universe almost everything is an observer and responds to force-signals including variable relative signals of which there is substantial evidence and indeed variability is inherent to relatives but not to absolutes. So the maths of Einstein may well hold for an appropriate action-at-distance physics.

Hence 1887 Michelson-Morley experiments (said to measure Earth's motion through an assumed absolutely immobile light-ether) showed light apparently having no directional velocity variation in a vacuum when such was expected in the Descartes-style ether that Lorentz assumed in vacuums. [though in this experiment light reverses its travel direction so that any velocity added in one direction should be equally deducted in the reverse direction and so be evidence of nothing, but some little difference was assumed by some physicists between these effects and Earth has various motions but the experiment maybe really proved nothing.] But many physicists somehow then concluded that this disproved all Descartes' push-forces physics, with many wrongly thinking that also meant all Newton physics - but it maybe proved only that space is basically a vacuum with no kind of 'ether' and that does not affect the passage of light or at least its wave velocity, and maybe that light is not affected by gravity, - and so that measuring any velocity in space within a moving system cannot reflect the systems velocity ? Physical detectors/observers could be even themselves be automatically adjusting reported signal velocities for relative velocity. Though it has long been taken that all objects on the Earth share the Earth's velocity, this experiment did weaken the then current modified-Descartes' Lorentz ether theory - but not maybe the Descartes ether vortex theory claiming the ether pushed the Earth along and so they would have the same velocity ? Some other speed-of-light measurements in the direction of Earth's orbit motion and in the opposite direction also seemed to show no differences though the disputed amount is very small indeed and actually Earth has several differing motions not just its orbit around the Sun. Fitzgerald saw a likely explanation of a seemingly fixed light speed as being really motion length contraction, but some saw it as being just apparent due to using light for length measurement and requiring light to have a constant velocity. Somehow Einstein and his peers claimed that this experiment crucially proved his theory (eg. Einstein's 1912 manuscript on the special theory of relativity pp.18.) - though maybe just proving light reflection conserved velocity and that light which can travel through space is not any ether medium-wave as any relative medium motion changes the apparent velocity of any wave of that medium, but some other experiments were perhaps somewhat more justifiably claimed to be proofs supporting at least Einstein's maths. Of course time-travel would more firmly support Einstein's physics, but that remains a fiction.

Michelson-Morley interferometer speed of light experiment ;

(Note. A somewhat similar 'speed of magnetism' experiment could maybe be tried with a rotating bar magnet between two suspended bar magnets each tied to opposite ends of a scale, and the experiment could be itself rotated to vaeious orientations to see if the scales pointer showed any differences with orientation ? But it might well still be hard to prove what precisely causes any observed deviations.)

For any object an obsever moving towards or away from the object will increase or decrease the objects velocity relative to the observer, but will not change its actual velocity. The velocity of objects emitted by, or reflected by, any source will reflect any velocity of the source whether connected by a push force or a repulsion/attraction force. For any wave (or other regular emissions) an obsever moving towards or away from the wave will increase or decrease the waves apparent frequency relative to the observer but not change the light's actual frequency, so being a relative change in the speed of the wave but no actual change. A wave (or other regular emissions) source moving should produce actual changes in wave or emission frequency, and the initial velocity of individual emmisions should reflect any source velocity. But for actual wave motion within any medium, both actual wave frequency and speed will depend chiefly or only on medium properties and some velocities may be billions of times smaller that other velocities.

While for Newton's physics all velocity physical effects were to relative velocity, for Einstein's relativity physics with its absolute speed of light some velocity physical effects were to absolute velocity. Yet accelerating particles 'absolutely' to near the speed of light does not seem to have given any of the predicted Einstein effects. And perversely Einstein took his no-magnetism-or-electricity theory's constant speed of light from Maxwell's magnetism-and-electricity-only theory's equations ! But 1895 to 1905 was a period with very public experiments by Marconi on remote-communication and by Tesla on remote-control and remote-power, seemingly clearly backing action-at-distance physics as by William Gilbert and apparently favoured by Newton. Yet physics theorists of the time including Einstein somehow just ignored all such experiments and continued the ridiculing of action-at-distance remote-action physics quite wrongly. Hence writing to Max Born in 1948 Einstein stated "I cannot seriously believe in quantum mechanics because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in space and time, free from spooky actions at a distance." Yet there is no evidence that Einstein ever actually studied the real action-at-distance physics of William Gilbert, nor indeed even the other classic spooky action-at-a-distance physics of Francis Bacon. And undoubtedly this also holds for most if not all more recent physicists.

Newton and Einstein both produced substantial works on light being particulate or corpuscular quanta, rather than waves in any ether, but Newton moved to his 'either push-particles or robot-particles might hold' black-box theory position while Einstein took a 'particle-wave duality' position on developing his own continuum ether theory with a Dualist non-consistent theory of light both being particle and being wave (or more accurately perhaps Particle and medium-less Energy-Packets for which wave maths held, with at least the latter not clearly defined). Einstein basically took experiment as both proving and disproving light being a wave. Newton and Einstein both gave gravity a substantial part in their physics but Einstein failed to integrate other forces and left magnetism and electricity to an isolated electromagnetic forcefield theory seemingly involving some other ether or continuum. And competing non-ether physics ideas continued in emerging quantum theories. But to Einstein gravity was NOT unique, as he spent many years trying to unify the theory of other forces with his theory of gravity ! Of course most physicists misunderstand Einstein as indeen most misunderstand much of physics and generally understand only the tiny bit of physics that they themselves are working on.

Until he developed his spacetime continuum theory of relativity, Einstein had like Newton been a bit of a black-box mathematical laws physicist though with leanings towards Descartes mechanical universe explanation, but his physics from then relates much to spacetime continuum localisations and curvatures. These Einstein ideas were to some extent along the lines of force field theory that had been developed for electromagnetism, and to which he also increasingly committed, and was basically a new energy-ether version of Descartes' matter-ether all-dead-matter push-physics with only humans doing any signal-response 'thinking' or 'observing'. But for anything, including Einstein's spacetime continuum, to have variable curvature it must be a pushy thing and a pushing thing - which Einstein insisted his spacetime continuum could not be in his physics ? So his physics did not really give any actual explanation for gravity or how it works. And with no real push mechanism for his energy spacetime continuum, Einstein's physics maybe favoured some type of 'field' physics that leaned more to some undefined 'information-field' or 'signal-field' than to any kind of a 'push-field' that he still seemingly inclined to. Yet not all who support his physics seem to support a push position, and Einstein himself was maybe less definitely committed to any physics mechanism than Gilbert and Descartes were to theirs. So his general relativity physics theory was perhaps really never fully defined. Maybe he thought that Newton allowing alternative mechanism options made it OK science to commit to no mechanism for a physics, though their seems no evidence Einstein ever really studied Newton.

Einstein's famous equation E=mc² defined his postulated inter-convertibility of 'mass' and 'energy' as two forms of matter, with c being the speed of light in a vacuum having to be invariant to any non-accelerating observer even if moving towards or away from the light. Einstein's matter was generally seen as involving Descartes 'dead-mass' and somehow also a 'dead-energy' as a form of that, though it perhaps better suits a Gilbert-Newton 'energetic-matter' as allowing energy both being located in bodies and outside but activating bodies more than just being the motion of bodies as Descartes held. For Einstein's physics, actual E=mc² conversions between mass and energy perhaps really held only for photon emitting and absorbing, though the equation E=mc² might be claimed to also fit Descartes kinetic energy - or at least maybe a 'potential energy' for a body if it is accelerated or decelerated. (and for eg graviton emitting and absorbing, the equation might perhaps be E=mg² if gravitons have a differing base emission velocity g ?) Descartes kinetic energy basically did remain but now as one form of energy only, and with normal changes in it being claimed to give bodies changes in 'potential mass' or 'relativistic mass'.

Most physicists from Gilbert and Galileo onwards had taken the measure of the amount of matter or 'mass' of any object as being its resistance to motion change or its 'inertia', though often this matter property was not precisely defined. This was generally considered independent of an object's velocity or temperature and might today be termed 'rest mass'. Einstein concluded that matter motion energy (and maybe other energy) was a property of matter that is separate from but convertible into the 'rest mass' property of matter, so any object should also have a 'relativistic mass' that increases with the object's absolute velocity or temperature. There then may be issues about whether the different effects that objects can show (which eg might or might not include gravity production and/or inertia) are due to their 'rest mass' or their 'relativistic mass'. And some physicists seem to take it as two kinds of matter being convertible into each other, each with some largely unspecified sets of properties.

Newton's force-gravity physics seems to require that gravity is produced by and affects only bodies with mass. Einstein's space-gravity physics seems to require that gravity is produced by all bodies with mass or energy, and affects all bodies with mass or energy. There seems no real proof that either is fully right in this respect, and maybe either or both might better be modified, as accurate measurement of zero masses or energies is at least almost as tricky as accurate measurement of near-zero gravities.

Maybe energy generally is not gravitationally equivalent to mass, ie a faster billiard ball does not gravitationally attract more than a slower billiard ball and a hot billiard ball does not gravitationally attract more than a cold billiard ball ? Energy in the form of photons may even be a special case and be gravitationally equivalent to mass, ie photons may gravitationally attract and be gravitationally attracted ? But if that is the case, then should we expect that a beam of white light passing close by a massive body would be split into its rainbow colours as Newton showed happens with a prism ? Or might variation in photon energy involve a non-gravitational component akin to matter motion energy ? Or photons might perhaps just be smaller faster neutrinos, unique less in their speed than simply in them being one of the basic building-blocks of which other 'elementary particles' are composed ?

Taking observers and light, or more broadly 'electromagnetic radiations', as maybe more fundamental than time and space, maybe came close to adopting a Gilbert-style signal theory but Einstein went elsewhere with his spacetime relativity. And his theory has perhaps produced some confusion of the properties of matter and the properties of energy, especially for matter-related energy like gravity. Einstein perhaps began the modern physics ascribing of properties to things without proof of such properties being consistent with other properties they had been proved to have. And often failing to precisely define what 'mass' and 'energy' exactly are in their theories.

Heisenberg and others claimed that there were limits beyond which no observer could get exact knowledge of nature, so that scientific predictions could at most be predictions of probabilities and essentially Newtonian blackbox science. But science rests on multiple observation and not just on individual observations. Einstein supported full-prediction laws of nature science and held that a valid theory's necessary 'unseens' like his spacetime continuum would actually be observable if only indirectly. But force fields and spacetime continua perhaps fit uneasily with eachother and uneasily with the many discrete quantum effects that nature seems to actually exhibit and have led to much work on developing a quantum mechanics physics generally including human observer uncertainty though not always also dropping all fields or continua.

The General Theory of Relativity

Einstein soon added gravity to his theory in his 1915 General Theory of Relativity now involving a space-time-gravity continuum. He postulated that masses (and maybe also energies ?) somehow locally curve his spacetime continuum (maybe by pushing it ?) and that the continuum curves somehow accelerate masses in it (maybe by pushing them ?)(and maybe also energies ?). Einstein concluded that gravity works 'somehow' though his general relativity theory still seems to definitely rule-out any kind of push-physics or Descartes-style gravity mechanism while not ruling-in any other kind of mechanism such as a Gilbertian signal or 'emitted spirits' gravity mechanism. This addition of gravity to his spacetime continuum basically came from Einstein's assumed Equivalence Principle saying that acceleration was equivalent to gravity, a perhaps arbitrary limitation of Newton's force definition claim that force was whatever produced acceleration and applied to all gravity, magnetism, collision or touch forces and any other forces. And gravity acceleration is not the same as touch acceleration. Touch-accelerate a platform that a man is on, at eg 100g, and parts of his body in contact with the platform accelerate 100g but other parts have inertia so the body flattens and you get a squashed-dead man. But gravity-accelerate a man 100g and all parts of his body accelerate 100g and the man is OK ! Einstein's claim that his 'one-force' gravity is not a physical force like magnetism is really a ridiculous claim. Many similar experiments have been done on both gravity and magnetism showing that they are basically similar physical forces with their similarities clearly noted by both William Gilbert and Isaac Newton. Einstein really failed to explain their similarities or their differences.

And of course if, as Einstein's theory required, Gravitational Attraction is equivalent to Acceleration, then how is that consistent with eg Electrical attraction or repulsion not also being equivalent to Acceleration ? The strengths of such natural forces as electric charge and magnetism seem to have no relation to the mass of the objects producing them, while the strengths of such natural forces as both gravity and collision do seem to exactly reflect the mass of the objects producing them. Not all physics theories seem able to account for, or reconcile, these facts easily - if at all. There is also some evidence that gravity has some relation to other forces that hold atoms together, with increasing gravity maybe reducing 'spontaneous' radioactivity. (And for 'spontaneous radioactivity' or 'causeless radioactivity' it has never actually been experimentally proven that nothing in the universe can cause it ? A possible cause of this could be some 'quantum fluctuations' but what would cause them - magic ?) Clearly the Einstein limited 'Gravity Equivalence Principle' like his 'Time Dilation' seems a doubtful extra assumption for a physics. See eg The Equivalence Principle from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.3885.pdf

However Einstein could now claim some consistency with Newton on gravity maths at least, though not with Newton blackbox or all-forces physics, and Newton would no doubt have strongly opposed Einstein's theory as requiring 'unscientific hypotheses about unseens like his spacetime continuum'. Einstein's maths does seem to better fit the well known precession of the planet Mercury, but that looks maybe a 1-off coincidence until it is compared with Newton's maths for many bodies - as for the good number of moons of Jupiter that have orbit gravities stronger than Mercury ? Some have explained Mercury precession as simply due to many-body solar-system Newtonian gravity pulls. And planets maybe look better than Suns at holding bodies in closer orbits, perhaps due to Suns emitting ignored push-force radiation signals that more affect closer bodies ? Einstein devoted years to trying to modify his theory to handle all forces for a non-arbitrary 'Unified Field Theory', but he could not manage this and neither has anyone yet from General Relativity. Einstein held to the basics of his continuum physics theory and, though agreeing that substantial evidence of quantal phenomena in nature did make his continuum theory doubtful, he thought that there must be one right theory and he did not consider quantum physics a better physics theory option. Of course there is motion in the universe so gravity is something variable, and to Einstein that makes spacetime variable and measurement variable - giving a much trickier science than assuming space and time to be fixed.

His theory did have some absolute rigid requirements chiefly of his continuum and of the particular velocity termed the speed of light. And if we removed Einstein's continuum relativity explanation from Einstein theory then we would have a no-explaining black-box Einstein theory maybe more complex and so less easily understandable than Newton's as well as covering much less. Of course, though some may be happy with the general idea of black-box science, many will complain that 'they do not really explain anything' - which supporters will say is fine if they correctly predict everything, but the absence of an explanation can maybe also make them harder to understand. Some modern physicists support theories that involve extra dimensions as explanation, though to many this does not itself explain anything and such theories might be better presented as black-box ? There are certainly plenty of proven cases of maths needing extra variables for reasons other than dimensionality that such physics 'explanation' seems to ignore. The maths of Einstein's theory certainly seems to predict better than the maths of Newton's theory in some limited areas, but that in itself is perhaps no proof of Einstein's postulated explanation - and as an explanation it maybe smacks of a mathematician's attempt at a logically simple universe basically like the Harmonies and Geometries theories of the early Kepler ? Albert Einstein's relativity universe explanation even he considered to be at least incomplete. Support for it largely come from astronomers and maybe helped take physics back to an early-Kepler mathematical-imagination physics scenario that still prevails. Einstein physics now is perhaps chiefly supported by astronomers and 'cosmologists'. Einstein repeatedly claimed that Newton's ideas supported his own, though it may merely have been that Einstein managed to construct his maths to match Newton's maths under some conditions. For planetary body motion, to the extent that he defined his mechanism for gravity it seems a basically similar push mechanism to Cartesian mechanisms which Newton proved are not compatible with his planetary motion or with actual planetary motion. For Einstein's theory to be viable it seems to need a gravity mechanism different to its claimed neo-Cartesian mechanism.

Einstein also showed no understanding of the real nature of the attraction theory that Newton used as one possible explanation theory (eg. thinking that it required faster-than-light action and nothing being emitted by bodies) and Einstein largely ignored Newton black-box theory and the wider cover of Newton physics. He seems not to have substantially studied Newton, and still less Gilbert. Yet Einstein confidently claimed that he had disproved the basics of all Newton theory - and Einstein assumed that Newton had disproved all prior physics. But any real reading of Newton and Gilbert physics contradicts most of these claims.

To read of Einstein's limited understanding of Newton's physics, and of his concern on quantal experiments disproving his own continuum field physics, read Einstein at www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-on-newton.html. (in this Einstein was also perhaps at the very least very tasteless in unnecessarily bringing up yet again some of the early unsubstantiated mud-slinging of Newton as being a claimed maths thief and liar)

Einstein developed his basic relativity thory ideas while working as a patent clerk being an amateur physicist. His general relativity physics involved a necessary acceptance of contradiction in physics theory, though many physicists somehow came to support it only as a non-contradiction theory. He took the acceptance of wave-particle duality in light physics as the general acceptance of contradiction in a physics theory. And not just allowing of contrary interpretations and contrary mathematics, which Newton had allowed as a blackbox philosophical option, but allowing of contradiction in actual experiments and in actual nature. Einstein said that nobody fully understood his theory, seemingly meaning that everybody misunderstood it. But, understood or misunderstood, key physicists proceeded to misrepresent Einstein's physics as had happened with previous physics - and that continues.

In relation to gravity, the behaviour of Einstein's spacetime continuum is commonly taken as not far from the behaviour of a Descartes' push ether and so involving some of its problems that were well addressed by Newton. However Einstein required that his continuum could not actually push objects but somehow 'helped direct their motions' (maybe better with a signals-giving-responses mechanism ?) It is not possible to directly detect his claimed 'spacetime continuum' or its claimed curvatures. It is another physics 'unseen' like the ethers of Descartes push physics and the signal effluvia or spirits of Gilbert-Newton attraction physics, so that claimed 'indirect evidence' for one of them can perhaps equally be taken as being indirect evidence for any of them. And if bodies do somehow tend to move along lines of equal gravity or equal space curvature (and not in a straight line), then should gravity and space curvature around the Sun be spherical and cause planet orbits to be circular and not elliptical as they actually are ? But really Einstein's gravity mechanism was poorly specified and so was, and remains, misunderstood or misrepresented by most physicists. So Einstein's "Spacetime tells mass how to move; and mass tells spacetime how to bend" must seemingly mean that both emit signals and respond to the others signals ?

In 1931 and 1952 a modern edition of Newton's Opticks was published with a Preface by Einstein in which he specifically also claimed that Newton's (blackbox) optics theory was a forerunner of the 'Wave/Particle Duality' light theory that he supported (which is maybe better termed Energy-Packet/Particle Duality as it generally involves no medium that can wave). But this involves a silly interpretation of Newton's actual optics, which were fully based on Newton's blackbox theory which did not allow contradiction within a theory and only allowed of multiple theory explanations as philosophically possible though unprovable IF they were consistent with the same maths - and Duality theory involves multiple parts of one physics theory with different contradictory maths. So this claim of Einstein of Newton-compatibility was plain ridiculous. If blackbox theory acceptance of alternatives leads to anything along those lines, it must be to an 'image theory' of science theories like that proposed elsewhere on this website. (PS. Newton's optics explained known light phenomena mathematically as well as did wave theory - the only 'problem' being that his 'light fits' when light passed close to atoms was not understood - and was presumably a microscopic quantal effect. Anyway, the fact that the initial write-up of a theory does not explain every phenomenon in the universe is no proof that it cannot be amplified to do that and certainly is not a sufficient disproof of any science theory)

In reality Einstein only disproved some of Descartes push-physics, adding to Newton's disproof of some of it, though trying to retain some Cartesian fundamentals like its definition of 'mass' or 'matter'. And the Descartes view of matter as dead stuff whose chief property is fixed space occupancy requiring contact pushing, fits uneasily with Einstein's space variability. General Relativity opposes and maybe disproves some of the essentials of Cartesian physics but not really the essentials of Gilbert-Newton physics. Relativity physics was actually a basic part of Gilbert signal attraction physics in its 'mutuality' which Newton physics also incorporated but Einstein ignored. William Gilbert 'mutuality' and 'coition' physics was basically relativistic and did not rest on fixed co-ordinate requirements or the like as Einstein supposed. And Newton's theory took such as only a matter of convenience and not a theory requirement either. All 'attraction' forces on a body and resulting motions are in both magnitude and direction relative to another body. It is also generally not proven that Einstein-supported 'field physics' maths cannot also be derived from Einstein-opposed 'signal attraction physics'. And it is generally not proven that Einstein-supported 'relativity' maths cannot also be derived from Einstein-opposed 'attraction mutuality physics'. These may well involve image compatibilities.

Though signal observer relativity was no doubt rightly central to Einstein's physics, his was a physics which itself had only matter, energy and continua and no observers or signals within it so that his observers and signals are weakly defined. Most attempts to incorporate observation and measurement into physics are maybe too narrowly human-oriented or 'anthropomorphic'. In line with both Relational Quantum Mechanics and Gilbert-Newton Attraction Physics, it can reasonably be posited that no physical event can happen without some information or signal being observed and responded to. Then the key requirements of the physical universe would seem to be not particles and/or waves or humans; but information emitters, information responders and response time ? Gilbert response physics and its Newton derived attraction physics did include observers and signals within the physics and Einstein might better have worked from that to have observers and signals better defined. Relativity basically took light and other 'electromagnetic signals' as emissions from bodies that, a Gilbert robot-matter Attraction theory supporter might complain, do little substantial in the universe except happen to inform human observers. Observers and signals are really bodies outside Einstein's actual physics and not essential bodies in it, unlike Gilbert signal theory or attraction theory as used by Newton though not fully publicly committed to by him. Einstein physics is really less a relativity physics than Gilberts. And almost all that we now know about the universe has come from electromagnetic or other signals, and perhaps nothing has as yet been learnt from any mechanical or force ether or spacetime continuum indicators. And interestingly in modern signal theory, the difference between digital and analogue signals is basically the difference between particles and waves.

Classical experimental physics theory certainly had holes so that Einstein could push his fictional-experiment 'relativity' physics theory. While many now claim that real physics started with Einstein, there is a maybe stronger argument that Einstein ended any chance of real physics theory and confirmed Catholic Inquisition 'just ideas' science-fiction physics theory based on his 'thought-experiment' or 'fictional-experiment' method. Of course there is some small chance that any science based only on thought or fiction may be right, but generally science based on actual experiments has a bigger chance of being right. 'Thought-experiments' can easily give results that conflict with the results of real experiments. Science theory was no longer to be based on substantial prior experimental fact, instead conjectural theories would hope to later find one or two selected facts to fit them and call that 'proof'. Einstein physics was challenged chiefly by quantum mechanics and its standard model(s), which has involved substantial real experiment on particles but has maybe struggled on its theory side.

To some at least, support for Einstein's relativity theory is support for its mathematics only - in line with Newton's blackbox theory position that science is only about predictive mathematical description of natural phenomena, and that explanations are unnecessary philosophy. From that position, Einstein's mathematics might allow of several different explanations of the physical universe - different image theories. Perhaps, in adopting duality physics and contradiction in physics, Einstein thought that he was merely expanding on Newton's black-box compatible alternative-theories physics. But there was a rigorous logic to Newton blackbox physics, and none to duality physics or contradiction physics. Einstein really rejected real science for a sci-fi magic version, and has been followed in that by too many who should know better. And of course unlike Newton, Einstein never published a 'Principea' for his physics to show how it might explain the actual different motions of different physical bodies.

For comparison with other physics theories, Einstein's three laws of motion would be ;

1. Every body will remain at rest, or in a uniform state of motion unless acted upon by a force or a spacetime curvature.

2. When a force or a spacetime curvature acts upon a body, it imparts an acceleration proportional to the force or the spacetime curvature and inversely proportional to the mass of the body and in the direction of the force or the spacetime curvature.

3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Atomic physics - what is an atom ?

Most early physicists assumed that gravity and the like were atom behaviours, and that atoms must be basically simple and improved knowledge of atoms would clarify the laws of physics for gravity etcetera. But atomic physics study has shown atoms to actually be complex, more in line with William Gilbert atom behaviour theory than with Descartes simple billiard-ball atoms that most physicists long supported wrongly. Early experiments seemed to show atoms as basically electromagnetic with electrons orbiting protons, but soon were taken as involving more parts and more behaviours. Atoms can absorb and emit light and other EM radiation, and can absorb and emit different particles, with some atomic events seeming simple immediate events and some involving cumulative excitement delay. And the behaviour of atoms including the photoelectric effect and spontaneous radiation seem to show that generally hitting an atom with a large particle causes a large immediate clear atomic radiation effect while some small things may have a delayed cumulative effect that can be hard to link to cause. Most atomic experiment has been on 'hitting' atoms with big stuff, though no actual contacts have ever been observed. And this is perhaps more 'abnormal' atom behaviour - and far from clarifying gravity and electromagnetic forces, atomic physics has had to assume that at least two new additional very different and really unproven atomic forces also exist.

While gravity and electromagnetic forces can be demonstrated to have basically infinite range with strength decreasing with distance, the supposed Strong and Weak atomic forces are claimed to somehow have a limited small range - and a Nobel prize was issued to David Gross et al for the claimed discovery that the short-range strong atomic force INCREASES with distance. The claim of a multitude of forces at work within an atom is problematic for Einstein physics, and atomic physicists generally adopt some version of quantum theory often with forces said to be based on particle exchange emission rather than on fields or space continua. Their 'particles' include as yet undetected gravitons for gravity, and others for electric charge and magnetism, as yet with little evidence. If atoms physically appear mini-solar-systems, their behaviour and forces seem more complex rather than simpler ! Modern atomic science atoms are looking too complex for Newton or Einstein theory but are maybe looking better suited to being Gilbert signal emission robot behaviour atoms ? There has been much debate in physics recently on whether the Graviton exists, though no debate on whether a Graviton might be a momentum-push particle, an energy quantum or perhaps a particle or energy quantum signal ?

And our 'elementary particles' like electrons may yet be found to themselves be complex systems, though if there is more detail to elementary particles it will be a non-visible 'dark scale' hard to detect. The maths of elementary particles and photons does allow of a humble 5+ MeV electron possibly being a complex composite system of eg up to 5,000,000+ 1 eV photons and/or other components ?

Light

Gilbert claimed that the physical universe works 'like light', while Descartes' optics had light as a push in his material ether medium, and both Newton and Einstein produced works on light as particulate radiation (or 'corpuscular' or 'quantal') without committing fully to them - and both considered light as subject to gravity. Yet others produced theories on light as waves in a medium, and support has at times swung between different theories of light. Light certainly shows some complex radiation, transmission and absorption behaviours not all of which seem easily explained by one theory ? Hence it basically travels in straight lines while waves spread all around, and a denser medium makes normal pressure waves travel faster but makes light travel slower. Several formulations of wave-particle duality theory have not given anything agreeable, and some experiments claiming to follow light paths may involve light absorption and re-emission or combine responses to light with responses to some Gilbert signal emitted by light photons.

Einstein relativity theory has to assign only to light the unique absolute property of velocity invariance even relative to moving observers. The normal almost-constant speed of light for stationary observers is reasonably understandable and may be simply the escape velocity from some very short-range atomic particle attraction force, as c = √ 2Fr , where F is force and r is atomic particle radius. (but that would seemingly require light to have mass and be attracted by gravity and maybe another force or forces) Or if light emission is by a repulsive force as of the electron using repulsion acceleration force signals emitted at velocity c, then if the light emission reaches velocity c it would then cease to receive the repulsive acceleration signals and would so emit at the repulsion force signal velocity c. Both attraction escape velocity and repulsion force signal velocity explanations of c would raise the issue of exactly what forces they could relate to. But it is certainly not proved that stuff like water and glass are not largely vacuum. And if a 'non-vacuum' is simply a vacuum with a few bodies in it, then light slowed in a 'non-vacuum' is probably light slowed in a vacuum and so is probable evidence against a key part of Einstein's theory ? Of course for spinning bodies an escape velocity should have a range of c +/- spin velocity. And Einstein velocity invariance is an absolute property that is not a normal property of waves that wave a medium and is not a normal property of particles either. Yet Gilbert signal attraction physics has a simple natural relative property, signalness, that can apply to light and maybe some other things only when they are acting as signals in eliciting signal responses from another body. And signalness is a natural relative property, and looks much stronger than the unnatural absolute light velocity-invariance property needed by Einstein relativity. (If Einstein's observer was blind and relied only on sound signals then his relativity physics would collapse.)

Einstein's theory seems to be supported by the fact that particle accelerators to date generally cease to accelerate particles that have reached speeds close to the speed of light. But this is confined to only electromagnetic acceleration of charged particles, which could be explained in a signal response physics by a response time. Einstein non-response theory always assumes a zero response time which looks maybe unlikely ? Signal saturation and other established signal theory effects could also possibly be involved. Numbers of astronomical observations and of physics lab experiments seem to have shown some massive particles moving at velocities very close to or even exceeding the speed of light. This evidence generally concerns neutrinos and appears to be some real evidence against Einstein's physics. Of course Newton insisted that no fixed velocity, even the velocity of light, can really be distinguished from rest - and so like Gilbert based his science on acceleration rather than on velocity with F=ma rather than F=mv² suggesting Einstein's E=mc² may be shakier ground. Einstein's claim for c as a velocity limit for all motion also seems confined to rectilinear motion and maybe does not cover spin motion ?

His amazing c is linked to his view of time, as being merely a property of his gravity-curved space ether or continuum and as not being independent of space and gravity as most previous physics held. If experiments indicate that two events seem always linked and seem always to happen 'at the same time', then it seems that one of the events is the cause of the other but also that such experiments cannot prove which event is the causal event. If anything indicates that one of the events is causal, then that event must be taken to precede its effect by some 'response time' even if too small to detect. And if causal events need not involve motion, then this 'time' need not basically relate to motion or to space as commonly assumed but rather to causation generally. If, as Gilbert showed, a magnet can induce magnetisation in a nearby piece of iron with no apparent motions involved by some forces involving the working of some causes and effects, then that seems not to involve any changes of motion or of occupancy of space, yet causes may be deduced to be working and to be preceding effects so that 'time' may be deduced here with NO observed motions or space changes being involved. Of course such deduction may need to be backed by other evidence of such forces from motion experiments, but that need not confine 'time' to only motion ?

Light interacts with atomic particles and most is known about its interaction with electrons which look much like simple particle collision type interactions, though little is actually known about simple particle collisions if they exist at all. Logically perhaps light looks like a class of particles normally bound to electrons by some attraction force the escape velocity from which is c. While light is said by some to be waves of a range of frequencies, it can act more like uncharged particles of a range of masses though perhaps not responding to gravity like normal matter particles. And a quantal or non-continuous emission can be of distinct single things OR of distinct sets of things like firing 3 missiles or a bunch of shot. Neutrons were at first claimed to be light wave photons, but they act quite differently and interact with atom nucleons more than with atom electrons.

Two interesting types of light-electron interactions are those called the Photoelectric Effect and the Compton Effect :-

The Photoelectric Effect involves different atoms emitting electrons in response to absorbing incoming photons.
1. A quantal response threshold normally applies, no electrons being emitted if the energy/frequency of each photon received is too low. (so normally one 4ev photon gets a response but two 2ev electrons gets no response - however some much lower-level of response is also produced in the latter case, seemingly whenever two lower energy photons are received simultaneously as Sipila et al 2007 at www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/10/368/njp7_10_368.html )
2. If electrons are emitted, the energy of each emitted electron is normally proportional to the energy/frequency of each above-threshold photon received.
3. If electrons are emitted, the number emitted is normally proportional to the number of above-threshold photons received.
This 'Photoelectric Effect' is better called the Photoelectron Effect, as the electric charge seems to not be involved at all in its mechanism. And this got Einstein his Nobel prize though it seems maybe more in line with Descartes push-physics in requiring light photons to provide all the energy or push to power the resulting effect. It is not light acting as a signal of small energy triggering some bigger energy response, but like Descartes having light punch and push nerves. But the Photoelectric Effect is a material emitting electrons in response to absorbing light of at least some Threshold Frequency - and higher light frequencies give emitted electrons higher energy. Discovered in 1887 by Heinrich Hertz, in 1900 Max Planck suggested that light was quantal in it then in 1905 Einstein published his small theory paper interpreting the photoelectric effect as involving quantal light and was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" though this small work of his really achieved little or nothing. And a logical quantal light theory interpretation of the photoelectric effect might seem to actually be a particle-set response as requiring receipt of some set of particles within some time period. Einstein's was a small theoretical work of interpretation of somebody's photo-electric experiment which may not be the best possible interpretation. And light theory currently requiring duality is certainly unsatisfactory.

The Compton Effect seems to involve light photons hitting electrons and losing some energy/frequency as though being a photon mass momentum collision. But here when a higher energy photon interacts with an atom, it can give up some of its energy and create a new additional photon of some lesser amount of energy (and lesser frequency). The energy of the new additional photon does not depend on the energy of the initiating photon, so that the Compton Effect looks more like a signal-response effect and unlike the Photoelectric Effect. It seems to require some electrons in a material being less constrained than atomic electrons usually are. This can be affected by the energy state of the electron, and has a much bigger multi-photon response than does the Photoelectric Effect.

Many take the Photoelectric and Compton Effects as proving that light is quantal, which may be true though generally responses being quantal does not as Einstein concluded require signals being quantal, though it certainly shows that atoms can respond to some subsidiary properties of things. Photoelectric Effect and Compton Effect responses show a directionality range similar to ball collision or to some spherical force repulsion. (and if a central attraction force has some emission Escape Velocity such as c, then a central repulsion force should have some equivalent absorption Entry Velocity such as c ? This might suggest emitted photons having some property differing from absorbed photons, but this does hold for emitted electrons and absorbed electrons.) It has been shown that atoms can gain momentum by absorbing a photon having one energy and re-emitting a photon having some different energy, the energies concerned being quantised, see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/dec/09/quantum-trampoline-measures-gravity

A quantal signal theory of light that could alone explain both wave and particle responses might perhaps be a Particle Set theory of light, where light is emitted as a set of say 3 particles and 1 particle set is 1 photon. Some physical effects could then be to its set properties and some physical effects be to its particle properties. Set properties could include equivalents to wavelength but not have the same relationship to velocity that simple waves have. Einstein got his 1921/22 Nobel Prize not for discovering the photoelectric effect but for his mathematical explaination of the photoelectric effect theorising that light is particulate or quantal as Newton thought, but like others he went with the limiting assumption that quantal effects proved single-particle action and excluded particle-set action. And he did not have his gravity or spacetime continuum quantal and he opposed quantum mechanics physics theory.

But a wave theory of light could perhaps also alone explain both wave and quantal responses using all-or-none response mechanisms as a mechanical clock can convert continuous spring pressure to digital ratchet motion. 'Duality' theory, as in taking light or matter as both being a wave and being not a wave, of course involves blatant logical contradiction and as such should not be unconditionally acceptable in science. Even if nature actually behaves in apparently contradictory ways, good science seems to require that there must be some non-contradictory explanation behind it. So at most it may be reasonable science to say that light seems to show both wave and non-wave behaviours and the explanation for it is not known and not to support contradictory 'duality theory'. Or for multiple theories to be logically acceptable they must fit the conditions set by General Image Theory science, as in Doppler Effect mathematics applying equally both to a wave and to any series of regular emissions as it truely does in fact.

- a particle-set 'photon'. - a wave.

Indeed the logical particle-theory interpretation of the photoelectric effect having a 'wavelength' requirement seems to actually be a particle-set interpretation, and some digital-set mathematics will be generally equivalent to wave mathematics. And light theory currently requiring duality is certainly unsatisfactory and suggests the need for new experiments, perhaps not just on light itself but on a range of particle beams and on a range of pressure waves in a variety of scenarios to clarify the actual properties of them. Pressure waves have perhaps been fairly thoroughly studied, but particle rays much less so - especially uncharged particle rays like neutrons that seem to react little with matter and so are almost unseens and hard to detect refraction, diffraction etc in. It may be that in similar circumstances both behave similarly or not to some extent, hence diffraction at material edges seems a wave property but might also be a particle ray response to quantal signals from material edges or something else. On other differing interpretations of 'double-slit' light diffraction experiments, see - quantum light theory.

If waves are motions of matter that repeat regularly and can be described with wave mathematics, then all events that repeat regularly can be described with 'wave mathematics'. And maybe any regular quantal signal or any regular quantal observation can be described with wave mathematics ? Or if matter existence involves regular repeat events then maybe matter can be described with wave mathematics without matter being waves ? So proof that a non-wave something can be described with wave mathematics is maybe no proof that the something is a wave, and even less is it proof that the non-wave something is both a wave and a non-wave. (Or if time is itself something and is quantal such that it repeats regularly, then maybe time can be described with wave mathematics. And then matter in time can be described with wave mathematics, without time or matter being waves ? Proof that a non-wave something can be described with wave mathematics is no proof that the something is a wave, and even less is it proof that the non-wave something is both a wave and a non-wave.)

In some circumstances a laser spot on a wall can be observed to move along the wall faster than the speed of light. While here nothing actual is moving faster than light, this is an observable illusion of something appearing to move faster than the speed of light. But strangely astronomy and particle physics seem to never report observing this type of illusion, and that maybe raises an issue as to the reliability of some astronomy and some particle physics ? And astronomical 'evidence' of 'gravity bending light' or 'spacetime bending light' seem to not fully match laboratory experiment, and with our limited knowledge of the actual physics of extraterrestrial regions could be mere refraction or diffraction type events. And some areas of space with strong gravity fields may also have strong magnetic or other fields as well confounding some claimed effects. Also, pulsating quasars show redshifts in line with the redshifts of other astronomical bodies, but their pulse timings do not seem to be related to their redshifts as relativity theory should imply - see www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627554.200-time-waits-for-no-quasar--even-though-it-should.html Attempts to 'explain' this quasar problem have been weak and include positing invisible astronomical bodies. For one good recent study of the uncertainty of astronomical data see Marie Gueguen's 2022 A crack in the track of the Hubble constant. Many key physics issues now seem not logic or maths issues, but experiment issue and all possible experiments have not yet been done. And interpretation of experimental results involving light acting as a signal certainly needs to consider signal theory interpretation, as in our Light as a signal section.

Isaac Newton demonstrated, and many experiments since have confirmed, that objects respond to gravity from other bodies as though gravity signals travel at a speed much greater than the speed of light and the same seems to hold also for electric and magnetic forces. Einstein gravity maths may explain this but several other explanations have been suggested. One possible explanation for this observed effect suggested by William Gilbert attraction theory could be that response to gravity, electric and magnetic signals may involve a signal anticipation mechanism (akin to eg anticipator thermostats). So a simple mechanism for this (tending to cancel at least some of the normal delay effect of a signal taking time to travel) could be response requiring a set of multiple signals and its directionality being to the last of the set ? See Information Physics.

Some kind of signal response mechanism seems really needed in the perhaps dubious Shifting Gravity Theory proposed by Daniel Emilio at http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio/a_shifting_theory_of_gravity.html. That basically needs particle gravity response to be basically a William Gilbert robot-response, but many signal-response mechanisms can have mechanical equivalents such as using valve, escapement and other mechanisms.

In most field and ether theories including Einstein's, forces are basically tied to their sources as is the Sun's gravity and can only be modified by modifying the source (ie. the Sun). But in a Gilbert style signal theory when graviton signals are emitted by the Sun (like light) they are separated from it and may allow of signal modification as by gravity-shields or gravity-magnifiers - though none such have yet been discovered. And signal theory can offer other effects as signal thresholds, signal saturation, response maxima and reaction time are normal phenomena in any signal theory, but their equivalents in other forms of physics theory when present can often appear perhaps more arbitrary ? Of course Einstein died before remotes and computers became common and his and other 'modern physics' have failed to incorporate the main modern technology ideas that were anticipated in Gilbert's physics and its part-development by Newton.

England in 2013 saw the somewhat unusually Einstein-supporting particle physicist populist professor Brian Cox claim in a speech at the British Science Festival that time machines are possible, "though only for travel forward into the future". If Einstein's theory depends on time-travel then, perhaps conveniently for it, no time-traveller could ever come back to prove they had actually time-travelled !! Of course it is not clear that Einstein's General Relativity requires time to actually vary rather than just to appear to vary by it being relative like velocity. Of course now more than 100 years after Einstein's 'spacetime curving' theory, technology that can 'curve spacetime' has still not yet been developed which can only be evidence that Einstein's physics is inadequate (and maybe that as yet all physics theories developed to date have been inadequate ?). If physical forces like magnetism and gravity involve responses to signals, then responses must follow signals and time must exist and must be one-directional ? Einstein like Descartes wrongly saw theory, and in his case specifically mathematical theory rather than just logical theory, as being more significant to science than experiment. as he claimed in eg his 1933 Oxford University lecture 'On the method of theoretical physics'. This shows Einstein having a badly mistaken understanding of the basic nature of mathematics, additional to a badly mistaken understanding of the fundamentals of science that may really rest on a view of the universe as being a creation of a mysteriously-logical God more than of the universe being actually logical ? Hence he did claim as a supposedly significant science argument that 'God does not play dice' maybe perversely not as against Cartesian-style random push physics his physics basically supported but as against only probability-physics versions of that. Einstein's science theory does contain numbers of significant problems but his biggest mistake was undoubtedly like fellow theoretician Descartes in rating science theory above the study of the actual universe. While being apparently a liberal Jew, Einstein basically followed the chief requirement of the Catholic Inquisition trial of Galileo that he "must present his science as being only thought". Einstein also inclined to a Pope argument that what he was claiming was too complex for ordinary non-genius people to understand, so most people should just trust him and believe what he claimed by faith. But many who want people to believe some nonsense make such a claim. It is true that a universe whose basic workings are simple, can have some multitude of workings at the same time so the totality may appear complex and will give some complex mathematics. Dwelling on some such derivative complexities while ignoring the basic simplicities is very bad science and is shown by too many modern physics theorists, who should really be looking at viewpoints more like that of Isaac Newton and of William Gilbert. Such science is basically understandable by the majority of people without needing all possible trickier mathematics to be understood. But still 2017 saw NASA backing doubtful theory claims that solar system orbiting in not fully explained by Einstein's or Newton's equations, but requires an as yet unseen mystery 'Ninth Planet' a big planet far beyond Neptune's orbit.

A new 2016 seemingly anti-Einstein anti-spacetime-continuum finding has been reported concerning the Sun's magnetic field. Apparently like its gravitational field, the magnetic field of the Sun seems near-spherical and so unaffected by the Sun's movement through space though Einsteinians had predicted a comet-tail shape. Of course Einstein's Relativity theory in fact failed to cover electromagnetism at all, but does seem to imply a strongly non-spherical gravitational field which also seems not backed by the evidence ? See - On the Sun's magnetic field. Newton predicted no effect from the Sun moving through space because all solar system bodies share that motion so that there is no relative motion involved and he saw only relative motion as giving physical effects as he showed for gravity between multiple bodies. Newton like Gilbert saw space as containing no kind of ether and so no ether drag on anything that could give physical effects such as claimed often by Einsteinians though Einstein himself had claimed that his continuum ether involved no drags or pushings. But clearly many 'Einsteinians' support a Cartesian version of Einstein's physics. Some physicists do talk of pushing of masses somehow caused by 'energy-momemtum' though it is not clear if that has any actual meaning ?

The chief requirement of Einstein's relativity physics was that masses locally curve its spacetime-continuum, though it specified no mechanism for this. Newton had posited two alternative possible mechanisms for his gravity physics, of which he seemed to favour an action-at-distance signal-response mechanism over some possible push-physics mechanism. Einstein really specified no mechanism but did seem to fully exclude a push-physics mechanism which maybe leaves possible some action-at-distance signal-response mechanism if his spacetime continuum can somehow respond to signals and can curve itself proportionately in response to masses 'gravity signals' ? Einstein perhaps ended up with his physics in a somewhat similar position to Newton's ? But having no specified mechanism for the theory's main requirement, there is perhaps really no specified way to prove or to disprove the theory. Certainly proving or disproving some minor bits of its maths cannot really prove or disprove Einstein's relativity. Maybe confirming its spacetime continuum by achieving the time-travel that it implies might be an actual proof of it, but now more than 100 years after its 1905 publishing we still have no time-travel. Indeed the physics theory of Einstein has maybe produced no real technology and for that should not really qualify as a scientific theory ? But only a very few experimental physicists then like Nikola Tesla really challenged the theoretical physics of Einstein and that maybe weakly.

Einstein's fame really grew after the USA's 1945 atomic bomb use, widely credited to Einstein undoubtedly largely wrongly though he had somewhat helped promote atomic bomb development and use but was not himself involved in either. (Einstein probably thought of atomic bomb use against Germany not Japan. But if Russia substantially defeated Germany, Russia also seemed likely to defeat Japan and America may have used atomic bombs against Japan to prevent them surrendering to Russia. When Japan did surrender to America their emperor got leniency that he probably would not have got from the Russians ? Maybe the Japanese emperor even favoured the atomic bomb use as allowing his leniency ? And atomic bombs really followed the discovery of radioactivity, of which nuclear fission is one kind.) It seems that late in life Einstein also basically abandoned physics, as he turned down his doctor's recommended deathbed surgery saying "I have done my share; it is time to go. I will do it elegantly." But 2024 still sees maybe a third or more of physicists supporting Einstein's relativity physics though it is undoubtedly a wrong physics even if his gravity maths is perfect which however many do now doubt.

But despite modern quantum physics development like string, loop and other quantal theories that seem supported mostly by 'particle physicists' and only some of which use field and particle-wave duality ideas, it is said that nobody has yet successfully published a real disproof of Einstein's General Relativity physics theory if such can be said to be needed for a theory so fundamentally self-contradicting as to clearly disproove itself ? The same can perhaps be said also of Gilbert-Newton attraction physics theory, but that physics is not self-contradicting ? In current physics, the first statement by C.A.Mead in his introduction to his 2000 'Collective Electrodynamics' is that "the last 7 decades of the 20th century will be characterised in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics" - and perhaps it has not ended yet. In the rest of his work Mead claims to prove that the universe consists only of electromagnetic waves and fields with no medium - his maths look good and others have backed such waves, but waves in nothing and fields of nothing as not nothing ? And science can do lots stuff with mediums like water or air but can do little or nothing with Einstein's claimed 'spacetime continuum' medium if it exists at all - and it is over 100 years old now. It seems that it almost certainly does not exist and that Einstein's self-contradicting physics is certainly wrong, and his accepting contradiction is even less scientific than his 'God not playing dice'. But for other relevant views of physics theory now see our String Theory, and for Black Hole, Dark Matter, Universe Expansion and other claimed phenomena see our Gravity section and our Information section.

Einstein, unlike Newton, Descartes and Gilbert, published none of his science in Latin - sticking largely to his native German. English translations to date seem largely to be on his relativity theories dealing with trickier phenomena. If we ever find a good explanation of his relativity theory for ordinary phenomena, as to how gravity works for planets, moons and comets and how collision energy transfer between bodies works with his E=mc² (how that works for emission and absorption of electromagnetic waves [or photons] seems obvious), then we will add it here.

As the closest we can find for now, you can read good English translations of Einstein's interesting 1920 lecture on Ether and the Theory of Relativity and his 1910 non-relativity lecture on Electricity and Magnetism at our Einsteins Ether.
And through Google Books you can read an English version of Einstein's 1916 Relativity.

Or for the best source of Einstein papers see http://alberteinstein.info/
Or to read another physicist Many-Minds Relativity view of Einstein's relativity see http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/article/many-minds-relativity-yvfu3xg7d7wt-5/.

If you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32 7AT.

OR if you like this site you could maybe make a donation ;

It will help with site development, and just possibly with some key basic physics experiments long planned but never afforded.
[PS. and you may perhaps help make history for science ?]