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

Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 28th 15, 10:17 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,625
Default Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American

Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes

Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no:

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

The above multiple absurdity cannot be produced by a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Pentcho Valev
Old December 28th 15, 02:39 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,625
Default Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

Einstein's original absurdity:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."

SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "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?"

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that:

(A) for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock;

(B) for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

Clearly there is a contradiction which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev
Old December 30th 15, 11:20 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,625
Default Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

Einstein's original crime:

John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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."

Einstein knew the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but in the end introduced it in order to disfigure space and time and become famous. If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev
Old December 30th 15, 11:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,625
Default Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

"In short, we concur with Ellis and Silk that the only way to keep these and numerous other pseudosciences at bay is to hold fast to the high ground of empirical testing. Along this line, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the eminence of some of the proponents has given super-string theory a 'free-pass.' This does not mean that all research in string theory and the multiverse must stop. But the practitioners of these fields should recognize that the chips are down: they cannot exist much longer as science if they cannot at least establish some crisp, testable connections with the real world of scientific data and analysis. They should not be given a free pass for all time."

George Ellis is a dangerous person, isn't he, Einsteinians?

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

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
HOW EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY KILLED OFF SANE SCIENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 2nd 15 10:09 AM
ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 October 10th 15 07:14 PM
SCIENCE WITHOUT EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 December 8th 14 09:27 AM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : THE MADNESS OF 20th CENTURY SCIENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 August 7th 14 04:20 PM
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 962 December 17th 07 12:45 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.