Theme: Science

YES THE EINSTEIN INDUSTRY IS CLOWNISH BUT CLAIMS HE DIDN”T INNOVATE ARE FALSE
(A complete analysis and judgement)

OK. Let me clarify Einstein’s one causal insight that allowed him to produce his two important theories that provided vast utility in the understanding of the universe AND the I’ll explain how he screwed up physics as a consequence too. And that the discipline is still screwed up because of it. And then, if I have time, how to fix it and who is fixing it.

1. The Reference Frame.
Einstein applied the reference frame from classical mechanics to light, continuing the evolution of physics that began with the study of light.
A reference frame is a system of coordinates used to describe the position, motion, and orientation of objects in space and time. In physics, the reference frame is crucial because the description of an object’s motion can vary depending on the frame of reference being used.

These signifiant figures, among others, evolved the reference frame, ending with Einstein:
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Galileo introduced the concept of inertial reference frames in his work on the principle of relativity. He stated that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute frame of reference. This laid the groundwork for the later development of the concept of reference frames.
Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Newton’s laws of motion, which form the basis of classical mechanics, are formulated in terms of reference frames. In his Principia, Newton discussed the idea of absolute space and time, which provided a fixed reference frame for the laws of motion.
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783): Euler developed the concept of rigid body motion and introduced the idea of a body-fixed reference frame, which is a reference frame that moves with a rigid body.
Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813): Lagrange’s work on analytical mechanics, particularly his development of the Lagrangian formulation, made extensive use of generalized coordinates and reference frames.
Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis (1792-1843): Coriolis introduced the concept of the Coriolis force, which is an apparent force that arises in rotating reference frames.

Einstein’s First Simple Innovation:
Einstein added (a) the constant and limited velocity of light to (b) the reference frame and produced (c) his theories of general and special relativity.

Einstein’s major contributions to physics were not just the introduction of the frame of reference, but also the development of the theories of special and general relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity.

Special relativity (1905): Einstein’s theory of special relativity introduced the concept that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of the motion of the source or observer. This led to the famous equation E=mc², which expresses the equivalence of mass and energy. Special relativity also introduced the idea that time is not absolute but can dilate depending on the relative motion between the observer and the observed.

General relativity (1915): Einstein’s theory of general relativity is a geometric theory of gravitation that extends special relativity to explain gravity as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. This theory provided a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, and introduced the idea that massive objects cause spacetime to curve, which is felt as the force of gravity.

While the concept of frames of reference was not new Einstein’s application of it in his work was innovative – just as all innovations in history consists of combinations of extant ideas to generate new ones, gradually building our knowledge one insight upon another.

Einstein showed that the laws of physics must be consistent across all frames of reference, which led to the development of special relativity.

In general relativity, he extended this idea to accelerating frames of reference and developed a geometric theory of gravity.

Einstein’s theories were meaningful innovations because they provided a new framework for understanding space, time, and gravity that went beyond the classical mechanics of Newton.

But this was ‘cheating’ a bit. 😉
IMO, the use of light and waves continued the existing tradition common in physics. However, while Einstein solved the light problem and the relativity issues that result he did NOT solve the quantum backgroud problem.

‘Einstein’s Hand Waving’ (Pseudoscience)
Instead he used ‘hand waving’ called ‘space-time’ by treating space as a sort of flexible analogy to a lens. In other words he correctly describe the behavioral TRAVEL of light and mass through space, but he did not solve the problem of what space consists of – which we now understand is the quantum background that is never truly empty, just at different levels of excitement (energy and temperature).

The Problem with treating the universe this way?
All this advanced mathematics (and while easy to describe the mathematics is (IMO) brutally painful and requires more working memory than most of us can manage to produce even with endless repetition. 😉
The underlying issue is that the universe is constructed of discrete somethings, (think atoms of water) that act as discrete entities which, and Einstein’s mathematics treats the universe as continuous “I dunno what” that neither exists materially NOR is discreet AND still manages to bend motion of whatever goes through it (gravity).

Mathiness
So a whole army of jewish intellectuals re-platonized/re-mesopotamianized (verbal) mathematics, reversing the restoration of European mathematics by Descartes (operational) through Hilbert.
The notable figures I refer to are Cantor(verbal, infinities), Einstein(Pictures, Fictional Spacetime), Bohr(Idealism, Verbalism, Abandon Materialism, Remain ignorant, “just calculate”).

Thus the ‘devolution’ of (masculine) European mathematics, physics, discrete materialism to (feminine) Ashkenazi verbal mathematics, pictoral physics, and fictional continuousness.

Again, at the margins this polar difference is evident in sex differences in higher cognition. And the two intellectual elite groups in the world, the Europeans and the Ashkenazi Europeans hybrids reflect these sex differences in cognition. Something which explains much more than you’d assume about the twentieth century’s collapse of scientific innovation despite rapid advancements in technological innovation dependent upon earlier innovations.)

So we call this and many other misunderstandings that we are not conscious of: ‘Mathiness’. Meaning, the treatment of mathematics as a verbal construct rather than a symbolic language of operations on ratios.

So;
Yes there is an Einstein industry.
Yes it is far overblown for postwar political reasons we all understand.
Yes he made a minor innovation by combining two existing concepts from a long sequence of accumulated knowledge produced by others.
BUT;
Yes his innovation allowed him to produce two major innovations in the behavior of light, which we could then expand to the use of light to understand the structure of the universe.
AND;
Yes he and others also reversed the existential, operational, material, (masculine), European tradition (once again), and created generations of useless pseudoscience in doing so.
No he did not recognize he was doing it any more than women recognize they are destroying civilization with their pursuit of care by enabling irresponsibility for private and common.
No, unless epistemologists like myself diagnose and explain these matters, it’s hard to hold people accountable for what is effectively genetic instinct with cultural reinforcement.
The example being semitic verbal pilpul and critique, and the search for agreement independent of truth thus evading liability, instead of European material evidentiary testimony and evidentiary falsification, and the search for truth upon which agreement may be constructed along with liability and accountabilty for consequence.
(That sentence right there explains Semitic vs European ethics.)

THEREFORE;
The problem is that europeans do not defend against the feminine because we are not aware it, because our traditions are (aside from christianity) almost entirely masculine, and our metaphysics the opposite of the feminine.

In other words, if your attack on Einstein’s legacy consists of reverse-propaganda, that’s sort of fine in a way, because there is a grain of truth in it – even if it’s not the grain of truth you think of. He really did produce an innovation, but mostly the innovations were in his application of that simple innovation.

So the lesson is, that now that we know the underlying cause of the problem of the masculine vs feminine conflict of our civilizations, and the vast damage that can result from the devolutionary thought of the feminine, it’s our responsibility to take the responsibility for self defense, by proposing and instituting laws that prevent the ‘pseudoscience’ of the feminine verbal and seditious even though the feminine does not recognize it’s seditious and destructive.

And I have don the work to do that: equally suppress the feminine antisocial behavior conscious or not as we have the masculine. 😉

Its very hard to solve these problems, and that’s because they are very difficult to disentangle from our metaphysical presumptions endemic to our genetics and our cultures.

If it were easy, someone would have done it already. I was only able to do it because science has advanced so rapidly in genetics and neuroscience, and evidence has accumulated in economic behavior, and the internet has rapidly decreased the time necessary to access the vast body of scientific knowledge.

Affections.
Please let me know if you have any intellectually honest, respectfully asked questions. 😉

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation