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 MOST BLATANT LIE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 13, 01:29 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

According to Einstein's special relativity, time dilation is reciprocal - if two inertial observers move relative to one another, either sees the other's clock running SLOWER than his own. This sounds absurd but there is no formal way to prove the absurdity for the simple reason that, if both clocks are inertial, they are expected to meet only once.

In the famous rotating disc scenario one of the observers and his clocks are not inertial and this allows multiple meetings. Yet the absurdity of the reciprocal time dilation cannot be proved again - Einstein prudently abandoned the reciprocity in this particular case and informed the world that the inertial clock runs FASTER than the non-inertial clock and that's it:

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 refers to Section XII but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock placed on the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts RECIPROCAL time dilation for two INTERTIAL clocks: either INERTIAL clock (rather, the observer in this clock's system) sees the other INERTIAL clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (in this case the one on the edge of the disc) is not inertial. Yet in the above text Einstein claims that, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the inertial K-clock (at the center of the disc) is running FASTER than the non-inertial K'-clock (on the edge of the disc) by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). What makes him lie so blatantly? What does he fear?

By increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can convert clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). Now, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the (VIRTUALLY INERTIAL) observer "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of the disc (K'-observer) sees the clock at the center of the disc (K-clock) run SLOWER than clocks fixed on the periphery (K'-clocks).

The absurdity is proved now - the clock at the center runs both FASTER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K) and SLOWER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K'). We just have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: the consequent (reciprocal time dilation) is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old June 13th 13, 08:16 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

An even more blatant lie of Einstein:

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V."

That is, according to Einstein, the addition of velocities predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, w=c-v, "comes into conflict with the principle of relativity". For the past century, of all the Einsteinians all over the world, not one could think of a reason why this obvious idiocy should be questioned, let alone rejected.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 13th 13, 10:20 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light assumed by the ether theory and later by special relativity. Yet Einsteinians teach the opposite - that the experiment CONFIRMED the constancy of the speed of light - and a century of fraudulent teaching has converted the lie into absolute truth. John Norton and John Stachel rebuke brothers Einsteinians for teaching lies but assure that Einstein, unlike "later writers", was honest and never cited the experiment as evidence for the principle of the constancy of the speed of light:

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."

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-J.../dp/0817641432
Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', John Stachel, p. 179: "Are there any common features to Einstein's mentions of the Michelson-Morley experiment? Yes: Without exception, it is cited as evidence for the relativity principle, and is never cited as evidence for the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

Was Einstein really honest? In fact, he devised the lie and fiercely taught it, as can be seen from the New York Times 1921 article:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...B266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."

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
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM
Dictatorial forms of violation of sovereignty, classic civil rightsdriven repression, imperialistic, sadistic, blatant, human rights terrorism,classic fascist traits of cold rogue "I am watching you" forms of abuse andpublic insanity and cr gb[_3_] Astronomy Misc 0 May 11th 08 10:42 PM
Blatant plug for new astronomy club in Kent Manky Badger UK Astronomy 0 October 27th 07 10:08 PM
THE MOST BLATANT LIE OF EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 15th 07 03:47 PM
Here's a blatant for sale ad Joe S. Amateur Astronomy 10 May 27th 04 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 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.