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

The Logic of Albert Einstein



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 7th 20, 03:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Logic of Albert Einstein

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Judging from this text, Einstein knew two things:

1. The principle of relativity is true, proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

2. The experiment had not confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. (Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment had DISPROVED the constancy, but Norton and Stachel, being high priests in the Einstein cult, would not teach that explicitly.)

So it was tempting for Einstein to somehow deduce the second, constant-speed-of-light postulate from the first, the principle of relativity. A convincing deduction would imply that the second postulate is just as true as the first, and special relativity would become invincible.

The deduction was not convincing - it was idiotic - but the gullible world accepted it and special relativity did become invincible. Einstein declared that the speed of light is a law of physics, and then, in wordplay mode, combined this with the principle of relativity: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. So he "deduced" that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame, and that variable speed of light contradicts the principle of relativity: https://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

High priests in the Einstein cult diligently teach the idiotic syllogism:

Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).

Premise 2: Einstein said that the speed of light is a law of physics.

Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity." https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 7th 20, 05:12 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Logic of Albert Einstein

Stephen Hawking teaches Einstein's idiotic syllogism (the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame; the speed of light is a law of physics; therefore, the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame):

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton’s laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell's theory and the speed of light: all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving." http://index-of.co.uk/Science/Stephe...0Of%20Time.pdf

Richard Feynman is more prudent and teaches an implication (variable speed of light contradicts 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

The original "argument":

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press..prince.../vol6-trans/16

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
Albert Einstein Institute Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 August 7th 20 04:34 PM
ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE DEBUNKS EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 July 12th 15 09:47 PM
LOGIC IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 13 06:54 PM
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE REFUTES ALBERT EINSTEIN Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 12 01:21 PM
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 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.