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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Einstein's Two Sins of 1905
Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irlq3TFr8Q
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm The introduction of the false, even nonsensical constantspeedoflight axiom was Einstein's original sin. His second sin was an INVALID DEDUCTION. In 1905 Einstein deduced, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B": 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/ The conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B" is non sequitur  it does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. In other words, the argument extracting the conclusion from the postulates is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates: Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system. Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system. Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation), IN THEIR COMBINATION, give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. More precisely, the prediction is absurd  either clock lags behind the other, as seen from the other clock's system. We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence, which means that at least one of the postulates is false. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B" provides a straightforward quantitative prediction  the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation), and the moving clock "lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2". The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication of the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion  the slowness of the moving clock means that its traveling owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system: Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late  the gullible world was already fatally brainwashed: Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularlyrunning clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slowerworking clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balanceclock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Einstein's Two Sins of 1905
Conclusions generated by Einstein's false constantspeedoflight postulate are all idiotic. Some of them are VALIDLY deducible from the postulates, others are non sequiturs.
A validly deducible idiocy is that time SPEEDS UP for the traveler: 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/TwinParadox The above two texts in which logic is obeyed are rare exceptions. Einsteinians almost universally teach the non sequitur that time SLOWS DOWN for the traveler (this is an implication of Einstein's 1905 non sequitur "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"): 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." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE Brian Cox (2:25): "Moving clocks run slowly" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8lBIcHre0 John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...lativity..html Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion." http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481 Jim AlKhalili: "And, the faster you move and the longer you move at that speed, the slower your clock ticks, including your own internal biological clock, and so the slower you age  by tiny, tiny fractions of a second of course." http://www.jimalkhalili.com/blogs/2...mwiththeapp Pentcho Valev 
#3




Einstein's Two Sins of 1905
Einstein's third major sin was incredibly idiotic. In 1918 he informed the gullible world that, as the traveling clock (twin) turns around and experiences acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field emerges. This homogeneous gravitational field somehow affects the distant stayathome clock and makes it run very fast (makes the stayathome twin get very old) during the turningaround period:
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive xaxis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive xaxis 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 xaxis 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 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, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turningaround period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf "When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stayathome twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/TwinParadox Einstein's 1918 idiocy was a crucial fudge factor that saved the "theory". Without recourse to "enough strangeness" (see David Morin's text above), either twin will find his brother younger when they reunite after the trip. Einsteinians do teach the idiocy but never mention Einstein's original "homogeneous gravitational field"  it is too idiotic, even by the standards of Einstein's schizophrenic world: Richard Feynman: "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 John Norton: "Moments after the turnaround, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stayathome twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stayathome twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stayathome twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stayathome twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker.. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Einstein's Sins  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  September 2nd 17 02:49 PM 
In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing!  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  August 3rd 17 08:09 PM 
EINSTEIN'S 1905 HOAX  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  September 11th 14 06:51 PM 
EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  July 27th 14 09:45 PM 
EINSTEIN'S 1905 GAME  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  July 12th 13 11:17 AM 