EINSTEINIANA: FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Einstein's "logic" in the above text: In a gravitational field, the
speed of light "varies with position", that is, with the gravitational
potential. Therefore, if the gravitational potential does not vary
with position (if the field is zero), then the speed of light is
constant. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true.

Initially, this "logic" makes believers sing "Divine Einstein" and
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers tumble to the
floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

A VALID argument based on Einstein's equivalence principle (Einstein
was well aware of this VALID argument): If the speed of light varies
with the gravitational potential, then, in the absence of a
gravitational field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the
light source. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is false.

The following application of Einstein's equivalence principle might
prove instructive:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Is c' equal to c or is c' different from c? That is, is Einstein's
1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate correct or not? No priest in
Einsteiniana would directly answer this fatal question - the crimestop
is absolute in this case:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Still Einsteiniana's priests find it safe to use, in calculations, the
correct answer to the fatal question:

The correct answer: c'c as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
light.

Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining this equation with:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2), which means that in
any version of Einstein's general relativity we have c'c.

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev

When the top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the emitter), a receiver on the ground measures
the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), a result confirmed by the Pound-
Rebka experiment, and the speed to be c'=c(1+gh/c^2). In the period
1907-1914 Einstein had to put up with this conclusion of Newton's
emission theory of light and even used it explicitly. Still, in 1911,
he advanced a fundamental camouflage nowadays called gravitational
time dilation:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Therefore the two clocks in S1 and S2 do not
both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time in S1 with the
clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock which goes 1+phi/
c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared with U at one and
the same place. (...) For if we measure the velocity of light at
different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K',
employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the same
magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our fundamental
assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said
we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring time at places
with differing gravitation potential. For measuring time at a place
which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates, has the
gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when removed
to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c²) times more slowly than
the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-ordinates. If we
call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the
velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will
be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

So in 1911 the gravitational time dilation becomes the real effect
while the variable speed of light turns out to be an artefact - one
can only obtain it with the help of nonidentical clocks. However in
the subsequent development of Divine Albert's Divine Theory the speed
of light did remain variable, even more variable than in Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-onli...k/VSL/VSL.html
"In two works from 1907 and 1911 Einstein introduces a variable speed
of light. Sometimes this is taken as a contradiction to the constancy
of the speed of light, which was postulated in the foundation of
Special Relativity in 1905. However there is no contradiction at all -
even if in the fully developed GR from 1916 there is a variable speed
of light."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full
formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can
find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The
Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in
section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of
light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is:
c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to
the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a
more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full
theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For
the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28):
c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation
in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Apart from being variable in a gravitational field (more variable than
in Newton's emission theory of light), the speed of light is also
constant in Divine Albert's Divine Theory (due to gravitational time
dilation). Steve Carlip would say that the speed of light is both
variable and constant:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plus-vite-lu.../dp/2100072471
Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIÈRE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51:
"En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la
vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont
soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein,
alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son
existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit
ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi! Que la
vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la
ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même."

http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/2738...668551-5396107
Alexandre Moatti (p. 140): "La théorie corpusculaire se heurtait
toutefois à une contradiction expérimentale de taille : elle
impliquait que la lumière fût non seulement déviée mais aussi ralentie
par un champ de gravitation (comme le serait un faisceau de
corpuscules), alors que toutes les mesures donnaient une constance de
la vitesse de la lumière, indépendante de la vitesse de la source, et
indépendante de toute masse gravitationnelle à côté de laquelle elle
passerait !"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...
(...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with
clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive
at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data
with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based
on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from
K."

Einstein is lying blatantly: Section XII does not contain any results
showing why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run
FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in
Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts
RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers - either observer sees
the other observer's clock running SLOW. The Lorentz transformation
does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which
(the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

A correct logic:

PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).

CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (or with the Lorentz transformation), an observer "sitting
eccentrically" on the periphery of the rotating disc sees a clock at
rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery,
running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks fixed on the
periphery. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate (or with the Lorentz
transformation), a virtually inertial clock fixed on the rotating
periphery will be seen, by an observer at rest outside the disc,
running SLOWER than clocks at rest situated outside the disc. Clearly
we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 9, 7:37*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...
(...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with
clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive
at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data
with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based
on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from
K."

Einstein is lying blatantly: Section XII does not contain any results
showing why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run
FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in
Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts
RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers - either observer sees
the other observer's clock running SLOW. The Lorentz transformation
does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which
(the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

A correct logic:

PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).

CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (or with the Lorentz transformation), an observer "sitting
eccentrically" on the periphery of the rotating disc sees a clock at
rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery,
running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks fixed on the
periphery. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate (or with the Lorentz
transformation), a virtually inertial clock fixed on the rotating
periphery will be seen, by an observer at rest outside the disc,
running SLOWER than clocks at rest situated outside the disc. Clearly
we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev


Perhaps your objections to relativity stem from it being too complex
for your simple mind to understand?

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (...) Any ray
of light moves in the "stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. (...) From this there ensues the following peculiar
consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks
which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then
on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

This is a biased scenario presenting onesidedly the RECIPROCAL time
dilation. A non-biased scenario:

"...at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which,
viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous." The front end of a
very long train "is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B."
All along the train there are synchronous (viewed in the system of the
train) clocks which, on the arrival of the front end of the train at B
(the back end has not reached A yet), stop both ticking and moving
"with the velocity v" simultaneously (simultaneity defined in the
system of the train).

If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, then a
clock at the front end of the train lags behind the stationary clocks
at A and B. This is established by both observers (the stationary one
and the one in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

On the other hand, if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true, then the stationary clock at A lags behind all
clocks in the train, the clock at the front end of the train included.
This is established by both observers (the stationary one and the one
in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 10, 12:47*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (...) Any ray
of light moves in the "stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. (...) From this there ensues the following peculiar
consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks
which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then
on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

This is a biased scenario presenting onesidedly the RECIPROCAL time
dilation. A non-biased scenario:

"...at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which,
viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous." The front end of a
very long train "is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B."
All along the train there are synchronous (viewed in the system of the
train) clocks which, on the arrival of the front end of the train at B
(the back end has not reached A yet), stop both ticking and moving
"with the velocity v" simultaneously (simultaneity defined in the
system of the train).

If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, then a
clock at the front end of the train lags behind the stationary clocks
at A and B. This is established by both observers (the stationary one
and the one in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

On the other hand, if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true, then the stationary clock at A lags behind all
clocks in the train, the clock at the front end of the train included.
This is established by both observers (the stationary one and the one
in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev


Cybernetics is much more important than relativity since it tells us
how huge artificial minds are self-organized.