A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

EINSTEIN'S LOGIC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 5th 11, 09:28 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old January 6th 11, 08:36 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old January 7th 11, 09:58 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old January 7th 11, 12:05 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_39_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default 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  
Old January 8th 11, 05:06 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
K_h
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old January 8th 11, 06:06 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_39_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.