|
You seem to be implying that Einstein was a failure.
Considering his incomplete theories are still subject to rigorous testing today and so far have not been proven to be false. Sure he was a human and subject to human frailties.
Einstein's self admitted biggest blunder (The piece of fudge called the cosmological constant)may yet prove to be his biggest truimph.
If you look at string theory, the mathematics are also having to be made simpler by making a lot of assumptions and mathematical compromises.
As far as saying that I am not thinking and accepting Einsteins theories at face value without applying any thought, then the same could be said for people like:
1. Owen Gingrich.
2. Steven Hawking
3. Brian Green
4. Jeremy Bernstein
5. Gerald Holton
6. Shimon Malin
7. John Stachel
8. John Archibald Wheeler
9. Richard Feynmann
10.Julian Schwinger
12.Roger Penrose
The list grows much longer and these are well known authorities in Astronomy, Mathematics and Physics of every persuasion.
You make a point saying that any theory that introduces infinities into its equations is meaningless and incorrect in its assumptions.
Well, mathematics introduces infinities as one of its basic axioms (n+1) so does that mean that mathematics is incorrect.
Space as far as we know is infinite so any theory that discards infinity surely then must be incomplete.
The mathematical universe has infinite complexity and is not fully comprehensible to us humans and this is why Godel came up with his theory of incompleteness.
Given that Einstein died in 1955 and never had the benefit of modern technology, which in a lot of cases wouldn't have been available today if it wasn't for his incomplete theories.
Sure he had a problem with randomness, quantum theory and its paradoxes but did that make him unsuccessful?
To quote Richard Feynmann "I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics"
Randomness is upsetting to mathematicians but only an outsider to mathematics would venture this statement.
Just because infinities makes things more difficult to understand and compute doesn't make it incorrect and meaningless.
You stated in your post that there is something is "obviously" very wrong with SRT.The hint you gave was to look at the answers derived from the equations.
My question is then why did it take so long before some one could see this obvious mistake.
|