A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ENOUGH STRANGENESS SAVES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 21st 15, 10:25 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ENOUGH STRANGENESS SAVES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

Einsteinians, don't you fear that this "enough strangeness", devised by Einstein in 1918, sounds too idiotic to serve as efficient camouflage? Soon you will have to answer the following "embarrassing question":

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 22nd 15, 07:35 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ENOUGH STRANGENESS SAVES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

"Enough strangeness" as originally introduced by Einstein in 1918:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

This is perhaps the most fraudulent text in the history of science. There can be no calculation showing that "this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4". The turning-around "gravitational field" (acceleration) varies with time (from zero to some value, back to zero, then to some other value, back to zero again) and all these variations are arbitrary to some extent - they depend on the preferences of the operator. So no calculation at all based on the turning-around acceleration is possible, let alone one showing that something constitutes "exactly twice as much" as something else.

Moreover, everybody (except for the silliest Einsteinians) knows that the turning-around acceleration ("gravitational field") is immaterial:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 23rd 15, 09:20 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ENOUGH STRANGENESS SAVES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

In 1905 Einstein concluded that the moving clock runs more slowly (which also means that the travelling twin gets younger) even though there was no turning-around period in his 1905 scenario:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "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."

Einstein's 1905 conclusion can be rephrased as:

(A) On its arrival at B, the moving clock shows LESS time elapsed than the stationary clock at B.

Einstein could as well have advanced the following conclusion:

(B) On its arrival at B, the moving clock shows MORE time elapsed than the stationary clock at B.

Both conclusions (A) and (B) are invalid - they do not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The conclusions that validly follow from the postulates a

(A') On its arrival at B, the moving clock shows LESS time elapsed than the stationary clock at B, as judged from the stationary system.

(B') On its arrival at B, the moving clock shows MORE time elapsed than the stationary clock at B, as judged from the moving system.

Deducing (A') and (B') from the postulates amounts to reductio ad absurdum - when the moving clock arrives at B, it shows both less and more time elapsed than the stationary clock at B. That is, if Einstein had been honest, he would not have published his absurd "theory" in 1905.

Einstein informed the gullible world about the existence of (B') only in 1918 when he found a way to "explain" the twin paradox in terms of the turning-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin/clock:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 [the outward and return parts of the trip] the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2." [Note: In Einstein's paper U2 is actually the travelling clock and U1 is the resting one, but since in the quotation things are judged from the traveller's reference frame, U1 is said to be "going at a velocity v" while U2 is called "resting".]

Although rarely, today's Einsteinians also mention (B'), being confident that the confusion created by Einstein's 1918 turning-around-acceleration hoax would not allow the reader to notice the absurd coexistence of (A') and (B') in Einstein's "theory":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." x

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old August 24th 15, 07:37 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ENOUGH STRANGENESS SAVES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that stationary clocks tick both faster and slower than moving ones. Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2..._rectangle.png

Scenario 1: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY.

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant is travelling along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Scenario 2: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line.

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the clock of a single stationary ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities (stationary clocks tick both faster and slower than moving ones) and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO SAVES EINSTEIN FROM DOPPLER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 July 1st 15 10:02 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY AND DEMOCRACY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 May 28th 15 01:01 AM
TWO LIES BEHIND EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 17th 14 05:26 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 February 12th 11 04:55 PM
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 962 December 17th 07 01:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.