Einstein's Special Relativity: False Postulate, Invalid Deduction

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. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published - symmetrical time dilation sounds like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length". Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - in his 1905 article the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, fast. This means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead:

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."

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although there was indeed a contradiction in his special relativity, his general relativity had the solution to it:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous 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 - if general relativity gives the solution (the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast), how did Einstein find it in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked this question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally 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?"

Nowadays science's condition is so irreversibly hopeless that Einsteinians can safely teach any idiocy they want:

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, 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

Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
"In special relativity, clocks that are moving will run slower, according to a stationary observer's clock. For example, if Person A moves faster than Person B, Person A will experience time at a slower rate, and a clock he is carrying will tick slower than the clock person B is carrying."

The first sentence is correct - Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail that either clock is slow, as judged from the other clock's system. However this symmetrical time dilation is imperceptibly replaced, in the second sentence, by the asymmetrical time dilation invalidly (in the sense that it does not follow from the postulates) introduced by Einstein in 1905: Person A's clock is slow and Person B's clock is FAST. Here is more brainwashing of the same kind:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-...l-through-time
"This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world."

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."

"Time slows down for you if you are set into motion" is asymmetrical time dilation. Symmetrical time dilation implies just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP FOR YOU if you are set into motion. You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate of the clock of the stationary observer.. The comparison will convince you that the stationary observer's clock is slow and your (the moving observer's) clock is FAST. (The stationary observer will reach the opposite conclusion of course - your clock is slow and his clock is FAST.)

Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), the moving clock does not "lag behind" the stationary one, as Einstein invalidly deduced in 1905.

Pentcho Valev

The assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate) is false but sounds reasonable, the reasonableness due to the fact that the assumption is valid for all waves other than light. However, when combined with the principle of relativity, this assumption entails that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer as well, a conclusion which is almost obviously absurd. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ, which can only mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Einsteinians can only counteract the fatal equation c'=c+v (v'=v+vO in Sidney Redner's text) by referring to the so-called relativistic corrections - a γ factor accounting for the (nonexistent) time dilation. Actually the γ factor, correct or not, does not save Einstein's relativity. Let us consider an enlarged quotation from Roger Barlow where the γ factor is dealt with:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ. [...] Relativistic Doppler Effect [....] If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving, then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a γ factor: f'=(1+v/c)γf..."

That is,

f' = (c+v)/λ

when v is low (relativistic corrections are negligible), and

f' = (1+v/c)γf = γ(c+v)/λ

when v is high. Accordingly, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer is

c' = c+v

when v is low, and

c' = γ(c+v)

when v is high. Einstein's relativity is violated in either case.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate cannot but entail absurdities. Yet in Einstein schizophrenic world absurdity is norm - for instance, the inhabitants of this world find it obvious that the youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around acceleration (because Einstein said so in 1918) and is not due to the turning-around acceleration at the same time. Similarly, of all the Einsteinians all over the world, not one could think of a reason why trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers should be a problem:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

Einsteinians, trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum, Einsteinians. An absurd disintegration is required - Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev