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 INVALID ARGUMENT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 16th 15, 07:51 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT

http://www.yaabot.com/12541/the-rele...al-relativity/
"2015 marks 100 years since The General Theory of Relativity was dropped onto the world by Albert Einstein. (...) Essentially, the major implications of the theory of Relativity we (...) The only constant in the universe is the speed of light. The more you accelerate to this cosmic speed limit, the slower time will pass for you. This allows for 'trips' to the future by simply doing a roundtrip to your location at a high enough speed."

"The more you accelerate to this cosmic speed limit, the slower time will pass for you" is not a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (that is, even if the postulate were true, the conclusion is still false). The valid conclusion is:

The faster you move, the FASTER time will pass for you, as you compare your clocks with those of a stationary observer.

Here is the original non sequitur (invalid argument):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from an inertial system, the other inertial system's clocks run more slowly, or, what is the same, the system's own clocks run faster than the other inertial system's clocks. In Einstein's scenario, for an observer in the moving clock's system, his own clock runs faster than the stationary clock at B; for a stationary observer at B, his own clock runs faster than the moving clock.

Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "time travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, time travel into the future is possible.

Since then, Einsteiniana's hypnotists have been relentlessly brainwashing the gullible world and destroying human rationality:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
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..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMiUq7W_xI
Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
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")."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo
"In this video lecture, Neil deGrasse Tyson, America's most noted astrophysicist, describes the Twins Paradox, a hypothetical scenario in which high-speed travel slows down the aging of one twin, while the other twin ages at a normal rate."

http://www.davidreneke.com/time-trav...rof-brian-cox/
"Time Travel Is Possible Says Prof Brian Cox (...) Traveling into the past is impossible. Possibly. The idea of mono-directional time travel is a slap in the face for most science fiction storylines, but fortunately for Marty McFly there's no risk of accidentally sleeping with his mother from 1955 in this scenario. However, zooming around on hovering skateboards in the future is totally plausible. (...) "Can you build a time machine?" said Cox. "The answer is yes." Assuming we could build a spaceship that will accelerate an astronaut close to the speed of light, only for them to return a few hours later (in the astronaut's time frame), through a quirk of relativity it's possible that thousands of years would have passed on Earth. Therefore, the superfast spaceship will have become a time machine! Want to go further into the future? No problem! Fly the spaceship even faster."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
"ABC News spoke to author, astrophysicist, cosmologist and basically one of the smartest men on the planet, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson... (...) ABC: Is time travel possible? Dr. 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."

Referring to the gullible world, Einstein once said: "I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious":

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old July 20th 15, 08:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT

Einnstein's invalid argument:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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." x

The valid argument (reductio ad absurdum):

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, as judged from the stationary system, on its arrival at B the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B. However, as judged from the moving system, the clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B. The contradiction shows that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old July 21st 15, 08:16 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT

It validly follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates that, for the entire outward and return parts of the trip, the travelling twin observes his stationary brother remaining younger, and the stationary twin observes his travelling brother remaining younger. Needless to say, this is reductio ad absurdum that forces scientists to declare the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, false, and abandon Einstein's relativity. In Einstein's schizophrenic world the theory can be saved by informing the scientific community that "enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period":

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. (...) 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
  #4  
Old July 21st 15, 11:11 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein (1918): Relativist: " 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. " Critic: " You have solved the paradox, by taking the influence on the clocks into account of a gravitational field relative to K' ".

Einsteinians, is it true that the twin paradox can only be solved by taking into account the gravitational potential (turn-around acceleration)? Can you show the "calculation" Einstein is referring to? Do the following texts contradict Einstein's 1918 analysis?

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
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.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
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."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old July 22nd 15, 07:57 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT

Einsteinians confuse the gullible world by teaching that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is both crucial and immaterial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"Although some texts assign a crucial role to the acceleration of the travelling twin at the time of the turnaround, others note that the effect also arises if one imagines separate outward-going and inward-coming travellers, who pass each other and synchronize their clocks at the point corresponding to "turnaround" of a single traveller. In this version, acceleration plays no direct role; "the issue is how long the world-lines are, not how bent". (...) During the turnaround, the traveling twin is in an accelerated reference frame. According to the equivalence principle, the traveling twin may analyze the turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary. A 1918 paper by Einstein presents a conceptual sketch of the idea."

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html
John G. Cramer: "The significance of this is that the system of observer Ernest is an inertial frame, while the system of observer Sam is not an inertial frame. Sam is not in an inertial frame because in mid trip his ship's engines were used to accelerate him and to reverse the direction of his velocity for the return leg of the trip."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
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://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
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." x

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
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." x

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images...es/f_pic31.jpg

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'S 1905 POLYGON CONUNDRUM Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 13th 14 10:35 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
EINSTEIN'S 1905 THIRD ASSUMPTION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 June 3rd 13 05:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 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.