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.

 Einstein's 1905 Asymmetrical Time Dilation
 Author Name Remember Me? Password
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Einstein's 1905 Asymmetrical Time Dilation

 Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
March 15th 19, 10:15 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,085
Einstein's 1905 Asymmetrical Time Dilation

The following two conclusions (symmetrical time dilation) 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.

Conclusions 1 and 2, in their combination, provide no reasonable prediction.. That is, even though conclusions 1 and 2 are logically correct (validly follow from Einstein's 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 invariable") and abandoned his theory immediately.

In 1905 Einstein effectively deleted both Conclusion 2 and the phrase "as judged from the stationary system" in Conclusion 1. So he "deduced" a conclusion equivalent to this proposition (asymmetrical time dilation):

Moving clocks are slow and stationary ones are fast.

Needless to say, asymmetrical time dilation is non sequitur - the argument extracting it from Einstein's 1905 postulates is INVALID. On the other hand, asymmetrical time dilation provides falsifiable predictions. That is, if the invalidity is somehow swept under the carpet, the theory looks nice - it is falsifiable and involves no apparent absurdities.

Einsteinians have been teaching asymmetrical time dilation 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
 Ads
#2
March 16th 19, 08:46 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,085
Einstein's 1905 Asymmetrical Time Dilation

The introduction of a false, even nonsensical axiom ("The speed of light is invariable") was Einstein's original sin. His second sin was an INVALID DEDUCTION. 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

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

does not follow validly from Einstein's 1905 postulates. In other words, the argument extracting the conclusion from the postulates is INVALID.

The following two conclusions, in contrast, 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 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. More precisely, the prediction is absurd - either clock lags behind the other, as seen from the other clock's system. We have reductio ad absurdum par excellence, which means that at least one of the postulates is false.

In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion

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

provides a straightforward quantitative prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation), and the moving clock "lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2". The famous (but idiotic) "travel into the future" is a direct implication - 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

Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world was already irreversibly brainwashed:

Herbert Dingle: "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?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf

Pentcho Valev

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post The Lie About Einstein's Time Dilation Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 1st 18 10:30 AM Asymmetrical Time Dilation in Einstein's 1905 Paper Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 19th 16 04:58 PM Einstein's Time Dilation Absurdity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 3rd 16 06:56 PM EINSTEIN'S ASYMMETRIC TIME DILATION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 9th 15 07:01 AM EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION IS ABSURD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 May 11th 14 12:26 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.

 - Contact Us - SpaceBanter Home - FAQ - Links - Privacy Statement - Top

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.