A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

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 March 2nd 19, 02:07 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,465
Default Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument

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 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.

A VALID argument did exist, and if Einstein had used it, he would have deduced the following two conclusions 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. Reductio ad absurdum par excellence: the postulates entail an absurdity which means that at least one of them is false. If Einstein had been honest, he would have identified the false postulate (the constancy of the speed of light of course) 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. This implies that, if the invalidity of the deduction is unnoticed or ignored, there is no apparent reason to abandon the theory "immediately" - the author is justified to present it to the scientific community and wait for future experimental tests. So Einstein's sleight of hand (invalid deduction) animated his deadborn "theory" in 1905.

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 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

Einstein's schizophrenic world:

"I'm Brian Greene, professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University and co-founder of the World Science Festival. It's critical that you realize that there are two types of time travel, and they are radically different. Time travel to the future? Definitely possible. We know how to do it because Einstein showed us the way over a hundred years ago. It’s surprising how few people actually really know about this in their bones. He showed that if you go out into space and travel near the speed of light, and you turn around, and you come back, your clock will be ticking off time more slowly. So, when you step off it's going to be the future on planet Earth. You will have time traveled into the future." http://www.businessinsider.com/how-t...mholes-2017-11

Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old March 2nd 19, 08:07 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,465
Default Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument

Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that time ticks FASTER for the moving observer. He will discover this by checking stationary clocks the spaceship passes by against the spaceship's clocks. The moving observer will find stationary clocks to be slow and clocks on his spaceship to be fast:

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/Twin-Paradox

"Time ticks FASTER for the moving observer"

is VALIDLY deducible from Einstein's 1905 postulates but the above two texts are perhaps the only ones in Internet where the authors obey validity. All other Einsteinians obey the principle of maximum perversity and teach that

"time ticks SLOWER for the moving observer":

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
 




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 February 4th 18 10:21 AM
Einstein's Special Relativity: False Postulate and Invalid Argument Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 March 10th 17 05:16 PM
Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 18th 17 08:52 AM
EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 July 22nd 15 07:57 AM
EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 27th 14 09:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.