#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. (...) 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. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage - a result contradictory to the principle of relativity." This is perhaps the silliest argument in the history of science. Einstein's logic: PREMISE 1: That the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source is no longer an axiom; rather, it is a general law of nature known to "every child at school". See also http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ics/index.html John Norton: "That light always propagated at the same speed was a law within Maxwell's theory. If the principle of relativity was applied to it, the light postulate resulted immediately." PREMISE 2 ("The principle of relativity set forth in Section V"): "If, relative to K, K' is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K' according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K." PREMISE 3: The Galilean addition of speeds ("w=c-v") contradicts the principle of relativity. CONCLUSION: The speed of light relative to the carriage is c=300000km/ s. Newton's emission theory of light predicting that w=c-v is false. Any time believers bump into this Divine Argument so fatal for Newton's emission theory of light they start fiercely singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers tumble to the floor tearing their clothes and go into convulsions: http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! He explained the photo-electric effect, And launched quantum physics with his intellect! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel -- He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein -- Egad, could that guy derive! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! Brownian motion, my true devotion, He mastered back in aught-five! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Einstein's postulates imply That planes are shorter when they fly. Their clocks are slowed by time dilation And look warped from aberration. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
http://bartleby.net/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Einstein's logic: PREMISE: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between between the point of emission and the point of reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2). CONCLUSION: If phi=0, then c'=c. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true. Logic inherent in Newton's emission theory of light: PREMISE: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential difference between between the point of emission and the point of reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2). CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non- rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K." Einstein's logic: PREMISE 1: Lorentz transformations are valid: according to them, a clock in any inertial system runs SLOWER as observed from another inertial system moving with respect to the former. Lorentz transformations by no means imply that a clock in any system would run FASTER as observed from any other system. PREMISE 2: The clock fixed on the edge of the rotating disc is not in an inertial system. CONCLUSION: The clock at the centre of the rotating disc runs FASTER as observed by "an observer who is sitting eccentrically" on the edge of the disc (the clock at the centre can be replaced by a clock outside the disc but very close to the rotating periphery so that the observer sitting on the edge of the disc could easily compare its reading with that of the rotating clock). Another logic: 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 constant-speed-of-light postulate (or with Lorentz transformations), a clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery, will be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of- light postulate (or with Lorentz transformations), virtually inertial clocks fixed on the rotating periphery will be seen running SLOWER than clocks at rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery. Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... | http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html | Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc | K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... Nope, Einstein is lying. An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force which acts in a tangential direction. NEWTON'S FIRST LAW. Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon. Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html Einstein's logic: PREMISE 1: Lorentz transformations are valid: according to them, a clock in any inertial system runs SLOWER as observed from another inertial system moving with respect to the former. Lorentz transformations by no means imply that a clock in any system would run FASTER as observed from any other system. PREMISE 2: The clock fixed on the edge of the rotating disc is not in an inertial system. CONCLUSION: The clock at the centre of the rotating disc runs FASTER as observed by "an observer who is sitting eccentrically" on the edge of the disc (the clock at the centre can be replaced by a clock outside the disc but very close to the rotating periphery so that the observer sitting on the edge of the disc could easily compare its reading with that of the rotating clock). Another logic: 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). No, it is not reduced to zero. The gravitational field, for the observer fastened to the perimeter of the rotating disk, is v^2/R and since v is constant the gravity field decreases in strength as 1/R. CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (or with Lorentz transformations), a clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery, will be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of- light postulate (or with Lorentz transformations), virtually inertial clocks fixed on the rotating periphery will be seen running SLOWER than clocks at rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery. Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. There is no contradiction here. Because v^2/R is small, when R is big, clocks at the center of the disk are at the top of a gravitational potential with a large distance. Think of it like this: the potential will be on the order of acceleration times distance, i.e. around A*R in size. When A=v^2/R then A*R=v^2 which is constant. + |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
"K_h" wrote in message ... | | "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message | ... | http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html | Einstein's logic: | | PREMISE 1: Lorentz transformations are valid: according to them, a | clock in any inertial system runs SLOWER as observed from another | inertial system moving with respect to the former. Lorentz | transformations by no means imply that a clock in any system would run | FASTER as observed from any other system. | | PREMISE 2: The clock fixed on the edge of the rotating disc is not in | an inertial system. | | CONCLUSION: The clock at the centre of the rotating disc runs FASTER | as observed by "an observer who is sitting eccentrically" on the edge | of the disc (the clock at the centre can be replaced by a clock | outside the disc but very close to the rotating periphery so that the | observer sitting on the edge of the disc could easily compare its | reading with that of the rotating clock). | | Another logic: | | 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). | | No, it is not reduced to zero. The gravitational field, for the observer | fastened to the perimeter of the rotating disk, is v^2/R and since v is constant | the gravity field decreases in strength as 1/R. | | CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light | postulate (or with Lorentz transformations), a clock at rest situated | outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery, will be seen | running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it. On the | other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of- | light postulate (or with Lorentz transformations), virtually inertial | clocks fixed on the rotating periphery will be seen running SLOWER | than clocks at rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating | periphery. Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that | Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. | | There is no contradiction here. Yes there is. Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/ and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months. Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift. If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a universal constant. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c Either way, NIST are useless yankee ******s and WRONG. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FORBIDDEN LOGIC IN EINSTEINIANA | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 26 | August 29th 10 01:01 PM |
EINSTEINIANA'S LOGIC | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | June 22nd 09 01:13 PM |
#90 the most reasonable logic is that one and only one intelligent | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 30th 08 08:32 AM |
Logic Puzzle | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 21st 07 07:24 AM |
Follow my logic here.. | Mark F. | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | July 19th 05 12:03 AM |