Who is no better than L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, to respond your thoughts about Einstein and his imaginations: "Einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by his internal errors....Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists..."Dattebayo wrote:If Einstein hadn't imagined what his train would be like traveling at the speed of light, then his theories would never have come to fruition. Knowledge only comes about though imagination.carloslebaron wrote:Imagination is great, but people must learn to differenciate between knowledge and imagination, and in this that dude Einstein was dead wrong. because surely knowledge is more important than imagination
(Also, his theories are not laws, they needed to be modified a bit by others later on...)
Now well, Essen wrote these and more about the lunacies of relativity, after he witnessed the experiments made by relativists with his atomic clock, you know, they asking him permission to use the atomic clock in some experiments.
Imagination is useful, no doubt, but you just can't imagine a human being surviving in outer space without breathing air to survive, because "knowledge" will tell you that such thing is not possible, and only if you change the body of a human to adapt is such an environment, only then you can say that such "imagination" works, but perhaps that human may not be "human anymore" but a robot with human brain, or whatever.
So, knowledge is much more important than imagination, because prevents you to imagine fantasies alone, and helps you to imagine the invention of things which are inside the possible, we are talking physically, or course.
The imaginations of Einstein were lunacies, because he based his relativity on accepted but wrong ideas that time flows, and because such a failure, his theories are invalidated by lack of factual evidence. You see, a theory of science is an attempt to explain a phenomenon as a result of a former phenomenon of the same class, and that the primeval phenomenon is not necessary to be explained but surely must be factual.
This is the difference or a theory of science with a hypothesis, because in a hypothesis the primeval source can be anything, even a dream, a belief, a ghost, a lightning, anything is acceptable in a hipothesis, on the other hand, only facts are accepted as the base of a theory.
Besides, numerical results are not enough to validate a theory, because you must present the mechanism that acts to cause such a result, and so far, there is no mechanism showed by relativity to exlain how time dilates, so, a theory without this explanation is imcomplete, this is to say, invalid. You have lots of historical records to invalidate relativity, and if this theory still "alive" for many, is because there is an underground propaganda making good money by selling the fantasies of relativity as if they were science.
This is why -money/business-, even when today many theories are called theories of science, but they are no more than hypotheses, because they lack of a fact as their base foundation. As time is not physically existent, relativity is not science but, as Nordenson said -read my message right above- relativity is just filosophy...poor philosophy.
Einstein must be remembered as a good philosopher only because he was good in this branch of knowledge, and because after his nobel prize he became a lunatic when we talk about science, and it is a capital sin to call him "a genius" because his relativity, because in this case, he was a complete idiot.
My regards.
