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 Saved Special Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 10th 19, 03:25 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument Saved Special Relativity

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"

That is, he concluded that the moving clock was slow and the stationary one was fast:

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, asymmetrical time dilation, was non sequitur - it didn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. In other words, the argument extracting the conclusion from the postulates was INVALID.

The following two conclusions (symmetrical time dilation) 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, in their combination, give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. That is, although conclusions 1 and 2 are logically correct (do follow from the postulates), their combination amounts to nonsense. We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence: the postulates entail absurdity which means that at least one of them is false. If Einstein had been honest, he would have identified the false postulate ("the speed of light is constant") and abandoned his theory immediately.

The INVALIDLY deduced conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

provides falsifiable (in principle) predictions. That is, if the invalidity is unnoticed or ignored, there is no apparent reason to abandon the theory - the author is justified to present it to the scientific community and wait for experimental verifications. So in 1905 Einstein's sleight of hand (invalid deduction) saved a theory whose conclusions were absurd.

The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication of the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing in 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

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old March 10th 19, 05:27 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument Saved Special Relativity

The following conclusions validly follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates:

Conclusion 1: Moving clocks are slow and stationary ones are fast, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: Stationary clocks are slow and moving ones are fast, as judged from the moving system.

If we delete both Conclusion 2 and the phrase "as judged from the stationary system" in Conclusion 1, we obtain a version of Einstein's 1905 INVALIDLY deduced conclusion:

"Moving clocks are slow and stationary ones are fast"

(The original 1905 version is "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B".)

If the valid deduction were taught, relativity could still be opposed - critics could apply reductio ad absurdum. Teaching the invalidity, however, is devastating - the human mind is unable to resist so much idiocy and rationality collapses. Einsteinians have been destroying human rationality for more than a century:

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion..." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeto...vol3-trans/368

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 Al-Khalili: "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.jimal-khalili.com/blogs/2...m-with-the-app

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 11th 19, 11:26 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument Saved Special Relativity

The statement below is a conclusion validly deducible from Einstein's 1905 postulates; Einsteinians hate and don't teach this conclusion:

Stationary clocks are slow and moving ones are fast, as judged from the moving system.

Given the above conclusion, the following wisdom, universally taught in Einstein's schizophrenic world, is a pernicious lie:

Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE

Actually Einstein's 1905 postulates predict the opposite:

If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SPEEDS UP.

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 Invalid Argument Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 2nd 19 09:07 PM
Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 4th 18 11:21 AM
Einstein's Special Relativity: False Postulate and Invalid Argument Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 March 10th 17 06:16 PM
Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 18th 17 09:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:47 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.