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 ORIGINAL LIE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 14, 10:08 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL LIE

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."

According to special relativity, time dilation is MUTUAL. Here Einstein deals with two clocks in relative motion, and either of them is running slow as judged from the system of the other (so special relativity says). Accordingly, Einstein should have said:

1. The clock moved from A to B lags behind the clock at B, as judged from the clock at B's system.

2. The clock at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving clock's system.

Then Einstein should have concluded: Since the consequent (either clock lags behind the other) is absurd, the antecedent ("light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body") is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old September 17th 14, 05:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL LIE

An even more blatant lie 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 MUTUAL 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 (mutual time dilation) is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old September 19th 14, 10:50 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL LIE

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."

Note the phrase: "The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much..."

Einsteinians, have you ever seen this calculation? Can you reproduce it? Can you apply it to the initial acceleration of the clock at A in Einstein's 1905 paper?

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
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM
Do they really think this is better than the original? Mick Amateur Astronomy 2 January 15th 07 07:41 AM
reviving Wegener's original Centrifugal hypothesis & original pulsarhypothesis; history of science a_plutonium Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 06 09:54 AM
Dr. Einstein's Original Paper found in Archives of Leiden University nightbat Misc 1 August 21st 05 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 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.