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

Einstein's Plagiarism (Reverse Engineering)

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 31st 16, 08:32 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,992
Default Einstein's Plagiarism (Reverse Engineering)

Einstein derived the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations, called it "postulate", and finally derived the Lorentz equations from the "postulate":

John Norton: " The mathematical apparatus needed to complete this approach had already been developed by H. A. Lorentz in his theorem of corresponding states. Einstein knew well an earlier version of the theorem from Lorentz’s work of 1895. The difficulty of pursuing the approach is that a full implementation requires that more than field quantities transform in unexpected ways. Spaces and times must do so as well. Lorentz introduced an auxiliary time variable, his “local time,” in each inertial frame of reference. To complete the approach, Einstein would have to accept that this local time was just the time simpliciter of the inertial frame of reference. That would in turn require Einstein to accept the odd result that judgments of simultaneity would differ according to the frame of reference. Once Einstein accepted this result of the relativity of simultaneity, all his problems were solved. He could retain Maxwell’s equations unchanged and with them all their many experimental successes. He had no further need of the troublesome emission theory light. The speed of light would remain a universal constant c, the same value in each inertial frame and independent of the motion of the emitter. This conclusion would be elevated in Einstein’s 1905 paper to axiomatic status as the “light postulate.” "

Why didn't Poincaré come to the conclusion that the speed of light "would remain a universal constant c, the same value in each inertial frame"? Because that conclusion was nonsense. Both Einstein and Poincaré knew it was nonsense but the latter had conscience while the former hadn't:

John Stachel: "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."

Olivier Darrigol, The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

Pentcho Valev
Old August 4th 16, 07:18 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,992
Default Einstein's Plagiarism (Reverse Engineering)

Here is the plagiarist's confession - he did derive the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations, called it "postulate", and finally derived the Lorentz equations from the "postulate":

Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

Lorentz's "theory" was a blatant fraud. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory. By introducing the idiotic length contraction, Lorentz made the experiment confirm what it had originally refuted. Needless to say, Lorentz's fraud was manna for the even greater fraudster Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

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
In reverse order. Craig Fink Policy 0 November 11th 07 03:39 AM
E = mc ... 102nd birthday of a well covered up plagiarism by the Einstein Retard Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times Astronomy Misc 71 September 28th 07 05:28 PM
Reverse Snobbery Davoud Amateur Astronomy 5 July 23rd 03 12:54 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.