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

EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL FRAUD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 11th 15, 11:44 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL FRAUD

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 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 - 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 sure that the confusion created by Einstein's 1918 turning-around-acceleration hoax would not allow the reader to notice the absurdity:

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..."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 12th 15, 08:52 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL FRAUD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments (experiments by Fizeau, Rowland, etc.)"

Einstein was a pathological liar - there were no "relevant experiments":

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-S.../dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

Lorentz's "theory of the stationary luminiferous ether", from which Einstein borrowed his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, was nothing but a fudge designed to convert the Michelson-Morley experiment from one supporting the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light into one supporting the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...nion_final.pdf
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 12th 15, 05:39 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL FRAUD

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene mislead the gullible world into believing that time for the traveller ticks slow compared to time for the stationary (which leads to the breathtaking but idiotic implication that the traveller leapfrogs into the future):

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljQI7gGIot4
Brian Greene (0:53) : "Time for you [the traveller] is running slow compared to time for me [the stationary]..."

Actually, Einstein's special relativity predicts the opposite: For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, time ticks FASTER for the traveller (he sees his clock running FASTER than the stationary clock):

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..."

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 above 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".]

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
EINSTEIN, EDDINGTON, FRAUD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 May 27th 15 02:12 PM
EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL LIE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 19th 14 10:50 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : NEVER ENDING FRAUD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 31st 14 04:08 PM
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM
The original empirical fraud that started it all oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 9 November 30th 09 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM.


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.