EINSTEIN'S CONFUSED MIND

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
Albert Einstein: "A satisfying theory can only be reached if we dispense with the ether hypothesis. Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light. As in that theory, space that is free of matter and radiation is truly empty. Superficial consideration suggests that the essential parts of Lorentz's theory cannot be reconciled with the relativity principle. According to Lorentz's theory, if a light beam propagates through space, it does so with a speed c in the resting frame K of the ether, independently of the state of motion of the emitting object. Let's call this the constancy of the speed of light principle. The theorem of the addition of speeds states that the same light beam will not propagate at speed c in a different frame K' moving uniformly relative to the ether. The laws of propagation thus seem to be different in the two frames and, hence, the relativity principle seems to be incompatible with the laws governing light's propagation."

If "a satisfying theory can only be reached if we dispense with the ether hypothesis", why should the ether theory's tenet that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting object be reconciled with the relativity principle? Moreover, if "the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light", then the speed of light does depend on the state of motion of the emitting object, a prediction of the emission theory unequivocally confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by 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."

There was only one reason why Einstein "reconciled" the ether theory's tenet that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter and the relativity principle: they had already been reconciled in the Lorentz transforms and the plagiarist had no other choice.

Pentcho Valev

One of the silliest texts in the history of science:

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

Einstein confusingly stating that "the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo" was "a necessary consequence" of the "theory of electromagnetic phenomena":

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity. The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course. The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence."

In fact, "the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo" (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) was a tenet of the ether theory, a tenet participating in the "theory of electromagnetic phenomena" only insofar as the latter, in its 19th century version, was based on the ether concept. Lorentz and Poincaré had included the tenet in the Lorentz transforms, and by adopting the tranforms Albert the Plagiarist had no choice but to become a defender of "the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo":

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by 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."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein became honest in 1954 and made a confession: Nothing may remain of Einstein's theory and the rest of contemporary physics because it is "entirely possible" that "field concept" and "continuous structures" are the wrong basis in physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Needless to say, "based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" is a euphemism. Theoretical physics, being a deductive science, is actually based on well-known assumptions, some possibly related to "field concept" and "continuous structures". So if physics is going to crumble, as Einstein suggests, one of those assumptions must be false. Which one? Is there an assumption in modern physics which, on the one hand, is closely related to "field concept" and "continuous structures", and, on the other, is so important and indispensable that its falsehood can destroy a whole branch of science? The only such assumption is Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to which the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "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."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

http://bourabai.narod.ru/wallace/farce05.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg

Pentcho Valev

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."

Einstein's argument:

Premise 1: The speed of light relative to the embankment is c.

Premise 2: The speed of light relative to the carriage is w=c-v.

Conclusion: The principle of relativity is contradicted.

Einstein's argument is invalid - the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Here is the valid argument that Einstein had in mind:

Premise 1: The speed of light relative to the embankment is independent of the speed of the emitter.

Premise 2: If the speed of light relative to the embankment is c, then the speed of light relative to the carriage is w=c-v.

Conclusion: The principle of relativity is contradicted.

Why did Einstein replace the valid argument with the invalid one? Because the valid argument opens the door to another valid argument, extremely dangerous for Einstein's theories:

Premise 1: The speed of light relative to the embankment is NOT independent of the speed of the emitter.

Premise 2: If the speed of light relative to the embankment is c, then the speed of light relative to the carriage is w=c-v.

Conclusion: The principle of relativity is NOT contradicted.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's invalid and confusing argument:

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."

Richard Feynman repeats the invalid and confusing argument but is somewhat more obscu

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. (...) ...according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail, to show exactly what was done and what was the matter; something was the matter, of course, something was wrong with the equations of physics. What could it be?"

It is plain that Feynman disagrees with the conclusion "apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec" and suggests that the Michelson-Morley experiment has refuted that conclusion. In fact, before Fitzgerald and Lorentz advanced the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis, the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed that "if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec":

http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/doc...S07/Norton.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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein teaching his worshippers that, according to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process. In other words, the turn-around acceleration is responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by Albert Einstein: "...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory. (...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. 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 consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Some worshippers find it profitable to stick closely to the Divine Teaching:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Other worshippers can see no reason why the turn-around acceleration should be responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

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

The absurd thesis that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer is a corollary of the Lorentz transforms so by adopting the transforms Albert the Plagiarist (aka Divine Albert) had to accomodate the thesis as well. Yet his postulates could not officially originate from the Lorentz transforms (the plagiarism would be too obvious) and the Einsteinian propaganda found another source: the thesis had been a tenet of Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory:

http://theamericanscholar.org/relativity-and-all-that/
"In the everyday world, I might see the bus I need to catch just as it rounds the corner and disappears. I run after it while it accelerates to about 50 kilometers per hour; I frantically pick up my pace, peaking well short of the speed I need to catch up. I lose ground, lose hope, drop my bag, and trudge back to the stop. If I were a world-class runner, perhaps there would be a version of this story where I do catch up to the bus and maybe even overtake it. If I run parallel to the bus and match its speed, from my perspective the bus and I might as well be standing still. Now, imagine a beam of tight red light emitted from a professor's laser pointer. I'd have to be much more than a sprinter (a miracle worker, actually), but endow me for the moment with the power to catch the tip of this beam of light. In principle, if I could accelerate to 299,792,458 meters per second, I should be able to pace the laser beam. It's just like the bus. If I have the legs, I can match the beam. Except this time, even if I somehow achieve the speed of light, the laser beam will always be traveling exactly 299,792,458 meters per second faster than I am. I can never hope to catch it. In this way, the speed of light is the same for me, speeding along, and for the professor pointing at some equation, standing still behind a podium. Think about that for a moment. It is a bizarre assault on our common sense. Even more bewildering is that light's universal speed requires that time, our best and most constant friend, be as relative as space. But this result has been in the works for hundreds of years. Gali*leo's celestial observations seeded the notion of relativity: an object in motion only makes sense relative to some other object. Michael Faraday's experiments, showing that electrical current generates a magnetic field and that magnets in motion generate current, hinted at some deep connection between magnetism and electricity. James Clerk Maxwell formalized Faraday's ideas into a physical description of light: electrical and magnetic fields oscillating around one another at exact right angles, always at a fixed speed regardless of motion in the observer. And Einstein was smart enough to take them all seriously."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs
"The [Maxwell's] equations seemed to say that light moved at 186,000 miles per second relative to... everything!"

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/S...15-ch27__2.pdf
"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers."

Einsteinians teach the truth as well (according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Why do Einsteinians teach both the lie (according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the observer) and the truth (according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer)? Because that is the best way to destroy scientific rationality and guarantee eternal supremacy of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4...22552b04_z.jpg

Pentcho Valev