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

How Einstein Abused Logic in 1905



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 19, 11:22 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,497
Default How Einstein Abused Logic in 1905

Einstein's 1905 conclusion: The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast:

https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157

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/

Does this asymmetric time dilation validly follow from Einstein's 1905 two postulates or is it just non sequitur?

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old November 12th 19, 03:21 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,497
Default How Einstein Abused Logic in 1905

The introduction of the false, even nonsensical constant-speed-of-light axiom was Einstein's 1905 original sin:

Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q

Einstein's second sin was an INVALID DEDUCTION. In 1905 Einstein deduced, from his two postulates, the conclusion

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

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"

is non sequitur - it does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. In other words, the argument extracting the conclusion from the postulates 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, as seen from the other clock's system. We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence, which means 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 quantitative prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast (ASYMMETRICAL time dilation), and the moving clock "lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2".

The famous slogans "moving clocks run slowly" and "travel into the future is possible" are direct implications of the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion (that is, they are non sequiturs). From a logical point of view, Thibault Damour's wild statements below have nothing to do with Einstein's 1905 postulates:

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 was already deeply brainwashed and Dingle's criticism was just as audible as a cry in a vacuum:

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
 




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
Einstein's Two Sins of 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 14th 19 07:10 AM
Einstein Abuses Logic in 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 29th 19 05:46 PM
Einstein's 1905 Abuse of Logic Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 25th 18 10:23 AM
EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 27th 14 09:45 PM
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 January 8th 11 06:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 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.