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 1905 HOAX



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 9th 14, 07:45 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 HOAX

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 is a lie - the theory Einstein has just developed does not say anything about two clocks one of which (the clock initially at A) is not inertial during some period. The theory can only be applied if the moving clock has never been stationary, that is, if it has been moving with constant speed v all along.

Let us change the scenario so that Einstein's theory CAN be applied. We have a large system, with possibly many clocks spread out through it, which moves with constant speed v relative to the stationary clock at B.

As one of the moving clocks crosses the distance between A and B (and is checked against stationary clocks stationed there), stationary observers find it running more slowly than stationary clocks. So the theory says. This prediction is consistent with the traditional twin paradox interpretation taught by Einsteinians.

Yet the theory says more. As the stationary clock at B meets, consecutively, two moving clocks and is checked against them, moving observers find it running more slowly than moving clocks. This prediction contradicts the traditional twin paradox interpretation, as the following example shows.

Consider synchronous clocks (ants in the picture) travelling with constant speed along a rectangular line and passing a single stationary clock located in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle:

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

Einstein's relativity predicts that the single stationary clock runs more slowly than the travelling clocks, in the sense that the difference between the reading of the travelling clock just being met and that of the single stationary clock gradually increases with the number of meetings.

We have reductio ad absurdum: If a single clock is travelling and multiple clocks stationary, Einstein's relativity predicts that THE TRAVELLING CLOCK RUNS MORE SLOWLY (the traditional twin paradox interpretation). If the multiple clocks are travelling and the single clock stationary, Einstein's relativity predicts that THE STATIONARY CLOCK RUNS MORE SLOWLY (in contradiction to the traditional twin paradox interpretation).

In case of reductio ad absurdum, some underlying premise is false. In this case the falsehood is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old September 9th 14, 09:31 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 HOAX

Essentially the same hoax in 1920:

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 refers to Section XII but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock placed on the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts RECIPROCAL time dilation for two INTERTIAL clocks: either inertial clock (more precisely, the observer in this clock's system) sees the other inertial clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (in this case the one on the edge of the disc) is not inertial. Yet in the above text Einstein claims (more precisely, lies) that, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the inertial K-clock (at the center of the disc) is running FASTER than the non-inertial K'-clock (on the edge of the disc) by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)..

It is easy to see that the rotating disc scenario actually refutes Einstein's relativity. By increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can convert clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). Now, in accordance with the Lorentz transformation, the (virtually inertial) observer "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of the disc (the K'-observer) sees the clock at the center of the disc (more precisely, another stationary clock close to the periphery, meeting moving clocks and being checked against them) run MORE SLOWLY than clocks moving with the periphery.

The absurdity is obvious - the clock at the center runs both FASTER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K) and SLOWER than clocks on the periphery (as observed from K'). We just have reductio ad absurdum: the consequent (reciprocal time dilation) is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old September 9th 14, 06:16 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 HOAX

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."

The initial acceleration of the clock at A that Einstein ignores in 1905 becomes crucial "gravitational potential" in 1918:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Albert Einstein 1918: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. 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. This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old September 11th 14, 06:51 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 HOAX

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."

The hoaxer knows no limits and continues:

"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line..."

In 1905 the accelerations are immaterial, in 1918 they become crucial. In 1919 Albert the Hoaxer becomes Divine Albert - accordingly, the accelerations become both crucial and immaterial:

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: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) 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. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

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 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 27th 14 09:45 PM
ABSURDITIES IN EINSTEIN'S 1905 ARTICLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 4th 14 08:57 AM
EINSTEIN'S 1905 GAME Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 12th 13 11:17 AM
EINSTEIN'S 1905 THIRD ASSUMPTION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 June 3rd 13 05:41 PM
Einstein Hoax Revealed; Big Bang Hoax Finished - Good Riddance! Heheh Imperishable Stars Misc 0 September 9th 04 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 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.