A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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 Science: What Went Wrong?

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 15th 16, 11:09 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,541
Default Einstein's Science: What Went Wrong?

Edward R. Dougherty: "When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto the lunar surface in 1969, it marked the end of perhaps the most productive period of scientific research and application, beginning with the publication of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905. Universities were teeming with mathematically gifted students studying science, mathematics, and engineering, and preparing for exciting futures in the unlimited vistas of science. What went wrong?"

"The most productive period" was actually a period of accumulation of absurdities, metastases of the original tumor - Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. This postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. Sounds idiotic, so instead of honestly deriving this in 1905, Einstein derived, fraudulently and invalidly of course, something that sounded breathtaking - ASYMMETRICAL time dilation. In Einstein's 1905 paper the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, FAST (this means that the moving clock and its owner TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):

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."

The magical "travel into the future" cannot be made up without Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and yet it does not follow VALIDLY from the two postulates of 1905. Logically, "travel into the future" is an independent additional tumor producing its own metastases.

Einstein's 1905 revolution:


Pentcho Valev
Old November 15th 16, 01:25 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,541
Default Einstein's Science: What Went Wrong?

Einstein's science as judged by Einsteinians themselves:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... [...] Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles * venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue * garder * la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."

"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet * la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."


Pentcho Valev
Old November 15th 16, 04:41 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,541
Default Einstein's Science: What Went Wrong?

All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, even idiotic. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies infinite compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is 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
Einstein must have known he was wrong. HVAC[_2_] Misc 0 October 8th 11 07:06 PM
Einstein must have known he was wrong. Painius[_1_] Misc 0 October 7th 11 10:45 PM
Einstein must have known he was wrong. Painius[_1_] Misc 11 October 5th 11 06:31 PM
Einstein must have known he was wrong. G=EMC^2[_2_] Misc 2 September 28th 11 09:25 PM
Was Einstein Wrong? Double-A[_3_] Misc 9 March 16th 09 11:52 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.