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 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 27th 14, 03:18 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 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."

This corresponds to "partial process 2" in Einstein's 1918 paper. During it, the stationary clock (U1) "runs indeed at a slower pace" than the moving clock (U2). In 1918 this is "more than compensated" during "partial process 3" (turn-around when the traveller experiences acceleration or "gravitational potential"):

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v [in the system K'], runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting [in the system K'] clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3."

That is, in 1905 the traveller runs slower as it moves from A to B. In 1918 the traveller runs faster as it moves from A to B, "but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period" to make the stationary clock end up with more time elapsed:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
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."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old July 27th 14, 06:03 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905

Einsteinians claiming that, in the short period when the travelling twin sharply turns around and suffers acceleration (is "at a higher gravitational potential", to use Einstein's 1918 terminology), the sedentary twin becomes older than the traveller:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
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."

John Norton and David Morin are lying of course, sticking to Einstein's 1918 original lie. It is easy to show that the turn-around acceleration ("gravitational potential") has nothing to do with the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

There are even twin-paradox scenarios where there is no turn-around acceleration (no "gravitational potential"):

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."

Conclusion: The turn-around acceleration ("gravitational potential") is irrelevant. On the other hand, Einstein implicitly admits in his 1918 paper that the "gravitational potential" is the only salvation for his theory. No "gravitational potential", no miraculous jumping of the stay-at-home twin's clock ("from reading 1 day to reading 7 days"), and the twin paradox becomes a blatant absurdity: the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old July 27th 14, 09:45 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905

Consider stationary ants spread out in the rectangular line:

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png

If a single ant is travelling along the rectangular line, consecutively meeting its stationary brothers, this is the original twin-paradox scenario. The travelling ant is the travelling twin which, according to Einstein's relativity, is gradually getting younger than its stationary brothers. In other words, the difference in age between the stationary ant/twin just being met and the single travelling ant/twin increases with the number of meetings..

If the single ant/twin is stationary, located in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle, and if the other ants/twins are travelling along the rectangular line, the scenario becomes dangerous. In this case Einstein's relativity predicts that the single stationary ant/twin is gradually getting younger than the travelling ants/twins. That is, the difference in age between the travelling ant/twin just being met and the single stationary ant/twin increases with the number of meetings.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that stationary twins are getting both older and younger than travelling twins.

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 Contradicts Himself Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 8th 07 08:14 AM
Einstein Contradicts Himself Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 November 1st 07 07:36 AM
Einstein Contradicts Himself Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 October 20th 07 08:14 AM
Einstein Contradicts Himself Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 October 20th 07 08:10 AM
Einstein Contradicts Himself Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 5th 07 11:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


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.