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.

 Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie
 Author Name Remember Me? Password
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie

 Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
September 13th 17, 02:21 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 6,799
Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie

Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:

Albert Einstein: "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." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Does w = c - v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.

Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner - he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that c-u comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:

Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Pentcho Valev
#2
September 13th 17, 09:11 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 6,799
Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie

Feynman is lying again:

Richard Feynman: "Now if all moving clocks run slower, if no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate, we shall just have to say, in a certain sense, that time itself appears to be slower in a space ship. All the phenomena there - the man's pulse rate, his thought processes, the time he takes to light a cigar, how long it takes to grow up and get old - all these things must be slowed down in the same proportion, because he cannot tell he is moving." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Is it true that "no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate"? Of course not - according to special relativity, measurements performed by the traveler himself give a FASTER rate:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, 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..." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

"The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] ...the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

Who taught Richard Feynman to lie? His teacher Albert Einstein of course. This particular lie ("moving clocks run slower") was devised in 1905:

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/

Pentcho Valev
#3
September 14th 17, 10:05 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 6,799
Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie

Einstein was a powerful doublethinker. He was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction, without any hesitation. So in 1911 he explained that the turning-around acceleration ("sudden change of direction") is immaterial with respect to the clock (twin) paradox:

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeto...vol3-trans/368

In 1918 the turning-around acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial and produced a miraculous HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

Feynman was a much weaker doublethinker than his divine teacher Albert. In his interpretation of the twin paradox he was not doublethinker at all - he just chose "turning-around acceleration is crucial", presented it in a muddled way, and ignored "turning-around acceleration is immaterial":

Richard Feynman: "The twin paradox. To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous so-called "paradox" of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul's clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter's point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mu-mesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a "paradox" only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, "Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can't we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet." But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship - the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on - while Peter felt nothing. So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

Unlike Feynman, most Einsteinians choose "turning-around acceleration is immaterial" (this scenario is easier to teach) and ignore "turning-around acceleration is crucial":

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/

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." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html

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.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf

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://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847

Pentcho Valev
#4
September 16th 17, 08:02 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 6,799
Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie

In my previous posting I wrote this:

Einstein was a powerful doublethinker. He was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction, without any hesitation. So in 1911 he explained that the turning-around acceleration ("sudden change of direction") is immaterial with respect to the clock (twin) paradox:

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeto...vol3-trans/368

In 1918 the turning-around acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial and produced a miraculous HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

Feynman was a much weaker doublethinker than his divine teacher Albert. In his interpretation of the twin paradox he was not doublethinker at all - he just chose "turning-around acceleration is crucial", presented it in a muddled way, and ignored "turning-around acceleration is immaterial":

Richard Feynman: "The twin paradox. To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous so-called "paradox" of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul's clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter's point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mu-mesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a "paradox" only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, "Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can't we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet." But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship - the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on - while Peter felt nothing. So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html
[END OF SELF-QUOTATION]

Actually I was wrong about Feynman. He does teach doublethink here, quite blatantly, and fatally damages the rationality of his students/readers. In the text above he claims that the turning-around acceleration is crucial but the next text should convince his victims that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial:

Richard Feynman: "When we discussed the fact that moving muons live longer, we used as an example their straight-line motion in the atmosphere. But we can also make muons in a laboratory and cause them to go in a curve with a magnet, and even under this accelerated motion, they last exactly as much longer as they do when they are moving in a straight line. Although no one has arranged an experiment explicitly so that we can get rid of the paradox, one could compare a muon which is left standing with one that had gone around a complete circle, and it would surely be found that the one that went around the circle lasted longer. Although we have not actually carried out an experiment using a complete circle, it is really not necessary, of course, because everything fits together all right. This may not satisfy those who insist that every single fact be demonstrated directly, but we confidently predict the result of the experiment in which Paul goes in a complete circle."

Pentcho Valev

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Feynman lectures kurt stocklmeir Astronomy Misc 0 December 11th 13 10:02 PM Lesson from Feynman Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 6 July 22nd 13 11:18 PM Quantum and Feynman's QED G=EMC^2[_2_] Misc 3 October 5th 11 08:56 PM Feynman's fallacy BHZellner Astronomy Misc 2 January 27th 05 12:10 AM [51-L] More Feynman, & etc. Jon Berndt Space Shuttle 2 September 9th 03 03:06 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM.

 - Contact Us - SpaceBanter Home - FAQ - Links - Privacy Statement - Top