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

Leaving Einstein's Sinking Ship... Too Late?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 16th 17, 09:27 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy,rec.arts.sf.written
The Starmaker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Leaving Einstein's Sinking Ship... Too Late?

Pentcho Valev wrote:

A couple of weeks ago I wrote this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/30471...st-1488708013/
How Einsteinians Run From Einstein

Now Phys.Org uses almost the same title:

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html
Running away from Einstein

Perhaps it is too late. Einstein's ship is sinking but theoretical physics as a whole is going with it, and there may be no resurrection.

The idiocy called "Relativity" started with Einstein plagiarizing the principle of the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations:

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..."

But there was an awful problem. The constancy of the speed of light as established by the Lorentz equations was (and still is) an obvious nonsense:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

In the end Einstein did introduce the nonsense (he had no conscience) by advancing his 1905 false second ("light") postulate, but a new awful problem emerged. All VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were absurd (not even wrong) - if Einstein had honestly derived them in 1905, his paper would not have been published.

Einstein "solved" the second awful problem by circumventing valid arguments and offering an INVALID one. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion that "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 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 h

Actually the conclusion

"The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates (the argument is invalid). The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation), being valid consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, entail absurdity (not even wrongness). Einstein hid the absurdity by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" was a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock meant that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while six

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf


The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic magic was born. The gullible world immediately fell in love with the idiocy:

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/im...0819051851.jpg

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html


Pentcho Valev



Einstein said:
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a
minute. But when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two
hours. That’s relativity."


My question is...what kind of clock was used to measure a minute/two
hours at the same time???? A two hour clock that is only one minute? i
don't get it..


where do you buy these clocks???
 




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
Leaving Einstein's Sinking Ship... Too Late? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 March 20th 17 12:55 AM
HOW EINSTEINIANS LEAVE THE SINKING SHIP Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 August 17th 14 07:05 PM
FAT RATS HAVE ALREADY LEFT THE SINKING SHIP Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 June 19th 08 11:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 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.