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 Idiocies: Time Travel into the Future



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 26th 17, 12:35 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Idiocies: Time Travel into the Future

Wikipedia: "The theory of relativity states that the speed of light is invariant for all observers in any frame of reference; that is, it is always the same. Time dilation is a direct consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. Time dilation may be regarded in a limited sense as "time travel into the future": a person may use time dilation so that a small amount of proper time passes for them, while a large amount of proper time passes elsewhere. This can be achieved by traveling at relativistic speeds or through the effects of gravity. For two identical clocks moving relative to each other without accelerating, each clock measures the other to be ticking slower. This is possible due to the relativity of simultaneity. However, the symmetry is broken if one clock accelerates, allowing for less proper time to pass for one clock than the other. The twin paradox demonstrates this, where one twin stays on Earth while the other travels into space at relativistic speeds, turns around (which involves acceleration), and returns to Earth. In this manner, the traveling twin has aged less than the twin who stayed on Earth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

No more clever Einsteinians in Einstein's schizophrenic world - a century of natural selection (survival of the fittest) has exterminated them. The Wikipedia text is written by a retard. "Time travel into the future" is introduced as a special relativity's conclusion, then this is denied and "time travel into the future" is reintroduced as a general relativity's conclusion (turning-around acceleration is crucial). But where does the idiocy come from?

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails SYMMETRICAL time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. This conclusion is not even wrong - the readings of the two clocks are incommensurable. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published. Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS 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."

Asymmetrical time dilation is false and does not follow from Einstein's postulates (symmetrical time dilation does), but, on the other hand, it does not involve incommensurability and for that reason sounds much more plausible than symmetrical time dilation. And its invaluable advantage (for the Einsteinian ideology) comes from the "travel into the future" it implies - in 1905 dull and apparently futureless 19th century physics became a fairy tale that went beyond any imagination. There was no need for organized brainwashing - the gullible world automatically got brainwashed from the very beginning.

In 1918 Einstein informed the brainwashed world that his special relativity was unable to resolve the clock paradox but his general relativity did have the solution. As the traveling clock turns around, a homogeneous (!?!) gravitational field appears for a short while, and as a result the distant stationary clock becomes much faster than the traveling clock:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis 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 x-axis 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."

The fraud is obvious. The HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field was an idiocy, and if general, not special, relativity had been able to explain why the stationary clock was fast, how did Einstein know that in 1905? Herbert Dingle was desperately asking essentially the same question in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world had already been irreversibly brainwashed:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, 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? 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 balance-clock 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?"

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 26th 17, 02:11 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Idiocies: Time Travel into the Future

Two famous hypnotists in Einstein's schizophrenic world, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene, mercilessly brainwash the gullible public:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
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."

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

Einstein's relativity predicts the opposite - the (validly deducible) conclusion from Einstein's 1905 postulates is that time SPEEDS UP for the moving observer. As this observer checks stationary clocks against his own (moving) clocks, he finds that the stationary clocks are slow and accordingly his own (moving) clocks are FAST:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
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://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox
"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."

Again: Special relativity predicts that time SPEEDS UP for the moving observer. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene know that but teach that time SLOWS DOWN for the moving observer. The brainwashed public is hopelessly confused: SPEEDING UP is false (moving clocks and stationary clocks tick at the same rate) but at least it validly follows from the postulates. Brainwashing becomes much more efficient if the validly deducible falsehood, SPEEDING UP, is replaced with its alternative, SLOWING DOWN, which is non sequitur.

Do Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene believe in both falsehoods, SPEEDING UP and SLOWING DOWN? Yes. They know what relativity really predicts but accept the alternative as well (George Orwell calls this "doublethink"). Similarly, Bingo the Clowno knows his real name but he also believes that his name is Bingo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo the Clowno

In other words, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene are both brainwashers and victims of brainwashing.

Here is a clear example of the conversion of rational people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 27th 17, 09:50 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Idiocies: Time Travel into the Future

So the idiocy

"Time slows down for the moving observer"

contradicts special relativity and yet Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene and brothers Einsteinians fiercely teach it. There must be something special about this idiocy. Where does it come from? Amazingly, from Lorentz. In 1895 Lorentz found it suitable to define "local time", t', as one measured by the MOVING observer:

"In order to be more specific, let us consider the case of a body in uniform motion with velocity v with respect to the ether, in a direction defined by some axis x. According to Lorentz (1895), observers bound to this body should not make use of the true universal time t of Newton, but of a "local time" t' which depends on the position through the formal relation: t'=t-vx/c^2." http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/ptm/pm...P/Reignier.pdf

It turns out, from this definition, that the moving observer sees his (moving) clock ticking SLOWER than the stationary clock. If the principle of relativity is not taken into account, this is not a mistake since the definition is arbitrary. If, however, the principle of relativity is obeyed, the moving observer must see his (moving) clock ticking FASTER than the stationary clock. Einstein did not understand this (the plagiarist hardly understood anything) and introduced the principle of relativity without replacing SLOWER with FASTER:

"Lorentz introduced an auxiliary time variable, his "local time," in each inertial frame of reference. To complete this approach, Einstein would have to accept that this local time was just the time, plain and simple, of the inertial frame of reference. [...] In an introductory historical preamble to a 1907 survey of relativity theory, Einstein remarked in words that to me have an autobiographical ring: "One needed only to realize that an auxiliary quantity that was introduced by H. A. Lorentz and that he called 'local time' can simply be defined as 'time'."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...over_final.pdf

"However, in the case of Special Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

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
Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 June 17th 16 10:41 AM
Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 6th 16 12:31 AM
EINSTEIN'S TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 December 5th 14 09:56 AM
Time travel into the future Hannu Poropudas Astronomy Misc 3 July 20th 07 02:58 PM
Time Travel Back From The Future in The Darkl Matter Galactic Halo? Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 0 August 21st 06 04:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 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.