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

Logical (Non-Experimental) Refutations of Einstein's relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 12th 19, 11:59 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,948
Default Logical (Non-Experimental) Refutations of Einstein's relativity

All consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, even idiotic, so Einstein's relativity can be disproved logically, through reductio ad absurdum. Here is a length contraction idiocy:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole - an event obviously impossible in Adam's frame. We have reductio ad absurdum and relativity should be abandoned but ... there is always salvation in Einstein's schizophrenic world. In Adam's frame the train undergoes an absurd bending (disintegration), as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this pictu

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._variation.PNG

We have reductio ad absurdum again: An absurd bending (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
Ads
  #2  
Old February 12th 19, 04:14 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,948
Default Logical (Non-Experimental) Refutations of Einstein's relativity

The introduction of the false constant-speed-of-light postulate was Einstein's original sin. His second sin was an invalid deduction. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics 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 higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

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. In other words, the argument leading from the postulates to the conclusion 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) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. More precisely, the prediction is absurd - either clock lags behind the other. We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence - logicians would infer that at least one of the postulates is false.

In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion

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

provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous (but idiotic) "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world had already been irreversibly brainwashed:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old February 12th 19, 08:27 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,948
Default Logical (Non-Experimental) Refutations of Einstein's relativity

Two valid arguments:

Argument I:

Premise 1: In a gravitational field light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies (g near Earth's surface), as predicted by Newton's theory.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion: Gravitational time dilation does not exist (general relativity is absurd).

Argument II:

Premise 1: In a gravitational field the speed of falling light DECREASES - the acceleration of photons is NEGATIVE, (-2g) near Earth's surface.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion: Gravitational time dilation does exist.

Premise 1 Argument I is obviously correct, confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

Premise 1 Argument II is an idiotic fudge factor Einstein had to introduce to reconcile the gravitational time dilation he had fabricated in 1911 and the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's theory:

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. [...] If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).. [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

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
The Simplest Experimental Falsification of Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 25th 16 11:15 AM
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 31 September 30th 10 08:21 AM
Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 September 27th 08 07:44 AM
Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 19 September 19th 08 11:43 PM
Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 14th 08 04:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.