FORBIDDEN LOGIC IN EINSTEINIANA

"Inertial" wrote in message
...

| Pentcho now talks about a different scanrio

scanrio
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

1.. scanner
2.. scunner
3.. stainer
4.. signora
5.. schooner
6.. signore
7.. signory
8.. skinner
9.. signor
10.. stingray
11.. sycamore
12.. stoner
13.. stannary
14.. seignior
15.. stinger
16.. stunner
17.. schmear
18.. schnorrer
19.. Suttner
20.. stingaree

"Inertial" wrote in message
...

| Pentcho now talks about a different scanrio

scanrio
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

1.. scanner
2.. scunner
3.. stainer
4.. signora
5.. schooner
6.. signore
7.. signory
8.. skinner
9.. signor
10.. stingray
11.. sycamore
12.. stoner
13.. stannary
14.. seignior
15.. stinger
16.. stunner
17.. schmear
18.. schnorrer
19.. Suttner
20.. stingaree

The essential difference between the twin at rest and the travelling
twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.
So in his infamous 1918 paper Einstein had no choice but to claim that
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to
acceleration. However:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
G. BURNISTON BROWN: "There is, in principle, no need for acceleration.
Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that
of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by
C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his
clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can
compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is
concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning
without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the
same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way
independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for
pointing this out to me.]"

That is, even without acceleration, the travelling twin ages slower
than the twin at rest. However, without acceleration, Einstein's 1905
light postulate entails RECIPROCAL time dilation and the twin at rest
must age slower than the travelling twin.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).

CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a
clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will
be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it.
Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that
the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually
inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ).
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.

There is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate which, if
suitably applied, converts the famous clock (twin) paradox into an
obvious absurdity. Here is the consequence:

If a single inertial clock covers the distance between two other
inertial clocks (immobile relative to one another), then the single
clock runs slower than the two other clocks.

In the clock paradox scenario the travelling clock commutes between
the clock at rest and the final destination where another clock at
rest can be placed. So, according to Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
the travelling clock runs slower than the clock at rest.

However, in essentially the same scenario, the clock at rest commutes
between two travelling clocks - e.g. placed at the front end and the
back end of a very long rocket. Therefore, according to Einstein's
1905 light postulate, the clock at rest runs slower than the
travelling clock.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
The essential difference between the twin at rest and the travelling
twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.

No. The essential difference is that one remains in an inertial reference
frame, whereas the other does not.

Where did you learn Relativity? From a cereal box?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| ...
| The essential difference between the twin at rest and the travelling
| twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.
|
| No. The essential difference is that one remains in an inertial reference
| frame, whereas the other does not.
|
| Where did you learn Relativity? From a cereal box?
|

Game over, Webb.

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein


Having joined the Relativity Taliban your role as a suicide bomber has been
successful, you managed to blow yourself.

The famous clock (twin) paradox consists in a superimposition of
absurdities. Originally we have RECIPROCAL time dilation - a direct
consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

I see your clock running SLOWER than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and
you see mine running SLOWER than yours by a factor of (1/gamma).

In his 1905 paper Einstein superimposed another absurdity incompatible
with the original one:

At the end of your round trip both of us see your clock running SLOWER
than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and mine running FASTER than yours
by a factor of gamma.

For a century the breathtaking question:

What in your round trip has made my clock run FASTER?

has been shaping (destroying) the sense of rationality of generations
of scientists.

There is a third superimposed absurdity lurking in the experimental
"confirmation" of the my-clock-fast-your-clock-slow wisdom. Cosmic-ray
muons crashing into an obstacle quickly disintegrate. Cosmic-ray muons
that do not crash live longer. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
crashing muons are obviously analogous to the clock (twin) at rest.
Non-crashing muons are analogous to the travelling clock (twin). So
Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity predicts that, when the
travelling twin returns, he is younger than the twin at rest.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The essential difference between the twin at rest and the travelling
twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.
So in his infamous 1918 paper Einstein had no choice but to claim that
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to
acceleration. However:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
G. BURNISTON BROWN: "There is, in principle, no need for acceleration.
Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that
of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by
C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his
clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can
compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is
concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning
without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the
same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way
independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for
pointing this out to me.]"

That is, even without acceleration, the travelling twin ages slower
than the twin at rest. However, without acceleration, Einstein's 1905
light postulate entails RECIPROCAL time dilation and the twin at rest
must age slower than the travelling twin.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.

There is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate which, if
suitably applied, converts the famous clock (twin) paradox into an
obvious absurdity. Here is the consequence:

If a single inertial clock covers the distance between two other
inertial clocks (immobile relative to one another), then the single
clock runs slower than the two other clocks.

In the clock paradox scenario the travelling clock commutes between
the clock at rest and the final destination where another clock at
rest can be placed. So, according to Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
the travelling clock runs slower than the clock at rest.

However, in essentially the same scenario, the clock at rest commutes
between two travelling clocks - e.g. placed at the front end and the
back end of a very long rocket. Therefore, according to Einstein's
1905 light postulate, the clock at rest runs slower than the
travelling clock.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.

PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).

CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a
clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will
be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it.
Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that
the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually
inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ).
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...

The famous clock (twin) paradox consists in a superimposition of
absurdities. Originally we have RECIPROCAL time dilation - a direct
consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

Except you have no valid reason for claiming it to be false.. all experiment
supports it as being correct

I see your clock running SLOWER than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and
you see mine running SLOWER than yours by a factor of (1/gamma).

Yes .. that's mutual time dilation.

In his 1905 paper Einstein superimposed another absurdity incompatible
with the original one:

At the end of your round trip both of us see your clock running SLOWER
than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and mine running FASTER than yours
by a factor of gamma.

Nope. Try again.

For a century the breathtaking question:

What in your round trip has made my clock run FASTER?

The change in rest frame of reference for the travelling twin .. its been
answered for a century. Where have you been?

[snip more nonsense and lies]