|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
Even if Einstein and his divine theory had never existed, one would
still be able to deduce the fundamental absurdities directly from the assumption that: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame": http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions David Morin Cambridge University Press Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples") can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley." That is, even in a purely Newtonian world, the following VALID argument would be logically justified: If the speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame, then an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container and a bug can be both dead and alive: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html "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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. 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." http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions "Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50 m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin. Comment est-ce possible?" http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi- même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas)." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." However, if Einstein and his divine theory had never existed, the sanitary logical procedure called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM would not be long-forgotten and the absurdity of the consequences would unequivocally prove the falsehood of the assumption. As for David Morin's fraudulent claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (perhaps the most important lie in Einsteiniana), fortunately doublethink forces Einsteinians to tell the truth sometimes: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
A direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (in combination with the principle of relativity) is RECIPROCAL time dilation: You move relative to me at a constant speed in a straight line. Then I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours. Both observations are correct. In 1905 Einstein had not yet realized that reciprocity was an unavoidable feature so he offered a sensational conclusion that did not follow from his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate: You go and return in a polygonal or circular movement. At the end of your journey both of us find my clock to have run FASTER than yours. So the original absurdity (RECIPROCAL time dilation) became malignant - nothing was able to save scientific rationality. A nice analysis has been published by Peter Hayes: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 Peter Hayes: "This first appearance of what has become known as time dilation in Einstein's work requires careful attention. In particular, anyone who assumes that the special theory deals only with uniform movement in a straight line and is thus a precisely delineated subset of the later general theory, will wish to explore why Einstein extends his conclusions to polygonal and circular movements. It is by no means "at once apparent" that what is true for a straight line is true for a polygon, nor that what has been "proved" for a polygon applies to a circle. The principle of relativity introduced at the outset of the 1905 paper implicitly limited the special theory to reference frames moving at a constant speed in a straight line with respect to one another. In later work, Einstein explicitly stated that the special theory applied only to a reference frame "in a state of uniform rectilinear and non rotary motion" in respect of a second reference frame, in contrast to the general theory that dealt with reference frames regardless of their state of motion (Einstein 1920, 61). Acceleration, therefore, would appear to be the province of the general theory. A polygon, however, would seem to necessarily involve acceleration whenever there is a abrupt alteration in the direction of travel. Even more confusingly, a circular path, far from allowing movement at a "constant velocity", has a velocity that continually changes. Einstein, it is argued, wished to minimise the significance of acceleration - as he did not mention acceleration at all in the passage, he could hardly be said to do otherwise (Essen 1971, 13). With respect to the transition from the straight line to the polygon, this assumption is corroborated by comments Einstein made in 1911 when he said that the larger the polygon the less significant the impact of a sudden change of direction would be. Einstein: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." (Einstein et al. 1993, 354) (...) The argument that the prediction of time difference between a moving and a stationary clock violates the principle of relativity is well known. Certainly, it must have become known to Einstein, for in 1918 he created a dialogue in which "Kritikus" voiced exactly this objection (Einstein 1918). In response to this criticism, Einstein underwent a volte-face, reversing his reasoning in 1905 and 1911. The sudden change in direction of the moving clock, far from having unknown effects that needed to be minimised, was now said to provide the entire explanation for the change. Instead of imagining a moving clock travelling in a huge polygon or circle to make sudden changes in direction as insignificant as possible or the journey as smooth as possible, Einstein imagined an out and back journey. He then explained that the slow-down in the moving clock occurred during the sudden jolt when it went into reverse. (...) Given Einstein’s argument in 1918, it seems inescapable that his 1905 prediction of time dilation was not, in fact, a "peculiar consequence" of his forgoing account of special relativity (Einstein 1923, 49). When it is also remembered that in 1904 Lorentz deduced the existence of "local time", it is reasonable to conclude that the prediction that the clocks would end up showing different times can be reached without entering into Einstein's reasoning on the special theory at all. The supporters of Einstein, however, generally maintain that one needs to move beyond the special theory to the general theory to understand why the times shown by the clocks would be different. However, as Einstein's prediction preceded the general theory, this argument is problematic (Lovejoy 1931, 159; Essen 1971, 14). It has been seen that: (a) in 1911 Einstein explicitly rules out the ability of the special theory of relativity to say what happened if the moving clock suddenly changed direction, and (b) in 1918 Einstein tacitly admitted that his explanation of the clock paradox in 1905 was incorrect by transforming the polygonal or circular journey of the moving clock into an out and back journey. If the general theory is necessary to explain the clock paradox, then Einstein must have (a) predicted the effects of acceleration in 1905 even though he did not incorporate them into his theory for another decade, and (b) hidden his intuition by describing a journey that discounted their significance. (...) There is, nonetheless, some divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction, considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that ( c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time dilation." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
Light waves put aside, as the observer starts moving towards the wave
source, the frequency and the speed of the wave relative to the observer increase while the wavelength remains constant (physically, there can be no relation between the speed of the observer and the wavelength). Yet: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." Although the idea that the wavelength of the coming light could depend on the speed of the observer is, physically, more than absurd, John Norton is forced to stick to and even teach it - otherwise Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate would prove false. Roger Barlow, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, does not want to teach absurdities. For him, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency and the speed of the coming light (relative to the observer) increase while the wavelength (lambda) remains constant: http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c +v)/(lambda)." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer). Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer). Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in: http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2) where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket scenario. By combining this equation with: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT: c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2) which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE. Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period 1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2). David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions David Morin Cambridge University Press Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate as arising
from the continuous-field model of light: http://sami5001.buzznet.com/user/jou...y-gravitation/ Albert Einstein in Scientific American, 1950: "The introduction of the field as an elementary concept gave rise to an inconsistency of the theory as a whole. Maxwell's theory, although adequately describing the behavior of electrically charged particles in their interaction with one another, does not explain the behavior of electrical densities, i.e., it does not provide a theory of the particles themselves. They must therefore be treated as mass points on the basis of the old theory. The combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of material points discontinuous in space appears inconsistent. A consistent field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points of space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory. Thus even apart from the fact that gravitation is not included, Maxwell's electrodynamics cannot be considered a complete theory. (...) Maxwell's equations imply the "Lorentz group," but the Lorentz group does not imply Maxwell's equations. The Lorentz group may indeed be defined independently of Maxwell's equations as a group of linear transformations which leave a particular value of the velocity - the velocity of light - invariant." So "the combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of material points discontinuous in space appears inconsistent", which means that Einstein's special relativity cannot be reconciled with Newton's emission theory of light presenting light as discontinuous particles and predicting that the speed of those particles varies with the speed of the emitter, just as the speed of cannonballs does. Yet in 1909 and in 1954 again Einstein confessed that Newton's emission theory of light is (at least partially) correct: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909 EINSTEIN'S 1909 CONFESSION: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." Driven by doublethink, clever Einsteinans give additional support to Newton's emission theory of light from time to time: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane." Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
From time to time dead scientific rationality surprisingly shows signs
of life and questions the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate but Einsteiniana immediately kills it again: http://gizmodo.com/#!5765603/this-an...d-twin-paradox "Casey Chan - Einstein's Twin Paradox is super confusing for me, every time I think I fully understand it, I find more questions. The Twin Paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity when one twin travels to outer space while the other twin stays on Earth. When the space bound twin lands back on Earth, he'll find that his Earthbound twin has aged much more than he has. Why is that? Watch this video to find out the simple explanation with animated cartoons." Note the following argument advanced in the video and universally accepted in the era of Postscientism: It is because only the travelling twin is PHYSICALLY experiencing acceleration, that the Earthbound twin has aged much more than the traveller. More signs of life coming from the scientific rationality's corpse: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html What is wrong with relativity? G. BURNISTON BROWN Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.7177 "A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as "monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation calculated: (i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey. (ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified. (iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore untenable as a physical theory." http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 "This first appearance of what has become known as time dilation in Einstein's work requires careful attention. In particular, anyone who assumes that the special theory deals only with uniform movement in a straight line and is thus a precisely delineated subset of the later general theory, will wish to explore why Einstein extends his conclusions to polygonal and circular movements. It is by no means "at once apparent" that what is true for a straight line is true for a polygon, nor that what has been "proved" for a polygon applies to a circle. The principle of relativity introduced at the outset of the 1905 paper implicitly limited the special theory to reference frames moving at a constant speed in a straight line with respect to one another. In later work, Einstein explicitly stated that the special theory applied only to a reference frame "in a state of uniform rectilinear and non rotary motion" in respect of a second reference frame, in contrast to the general theory that dealt with reference frames regardless of their state of motion (Einstein 1920, 61). Acceleration, therefore, would appear to be the province of the general theory. A polygon, however, would seem to necessarily involve acceleration whenever there is a abrupt alteration in the direction of travel. Even more confusingly, a circular path, far from allowing movement at a "constant velocity", has a velocity that continually changes. Einstein, it is argued, wished to minimise the significance of acceleration - as he did not mention acceleration at all in the passage, he could hardly be said to do otherwise (Essen 1971, 13). With respect to the transition from the straight line to the polygon, this assumption is corroborated by comments Einstein made in 1911 when he said that the larger the polygon the less significant the impact of a sudden change of direction would be. Einstein 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." (Einstein et al. 1993, 354) (...) The argument that the prediction of time difference between a moving and a stationary clock violates the principle of relativity is well known. Certainly, it must have become known to Einstein, for in 1918 he created a dialogue in which "Kritikus" voiced exactly this objection (Einstein 1918). In response to this criticism, Einstein underwent a volte-face, reversing his reasoning in 1905 and 1911. The sudden change in direction of the moving clock, far from having unknown effects that needed to be minimised, was now said to provide the entire explanation for the change. Instead of imagining a moving clock travelling in a huge polygon or circle to make sudden changes in direction as insignificant as possible or the journey as smooth as possible, Einstein imagined an out and back journey. He then explained that the slow-down in the moving clock occurred during the sudden jolt when it went into reverse. (...) Given Einsteins argument in 1918, it seems inescapable that his 1905 prediction of time dilation was not, in fact, a "peculiar consequence" of his forgoing account of special relativity (Einstein 1923, 49). When it is also remembered that in 1904 Lorentz deduced the existence of "local time", it is reasonable to conclude that the prediction that the clocks would end up showing different times can be reached without entering into Einstein's reasoning on the special theory at all. The supporters of Einstein, however, generally maintain that one needs to move beyond the special theory to the general theory to understand why the times shown by the clocks would be different. However, as Einstein's prediction preceded the general theory, this argument is problematic (Lovejoy 1931, 159; Essen 1971, 14). It has been seen that: (a) in 1911 Einstein explicitly rules out the ability of the special theory of relativity to say what happened if the moving clock suddenly changed direction, and (b) in 1918 Einstein tacitly admitted that his explanation of the clock paradox in 1905 was incorrect by transforming the polygonal or circular journey of the moving clock into an out and back journey. If the general theory is necessary to explain the clock paradox, then Einstein must have (a) predicted the effects of acceleration in 1905 even though he did not incorporate them into his theory for another decade, and (b) hidden his intuition by describing a journey that discounted their significance. (...) There is, nonetheless, some divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction, considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that ( c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time dilation. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. The claim that the theory of relativity is logically consistent for reasons that are too complex for non- professionals to grasp is not only convenient, but is rhetorically unassailable - as whenever a critic disproves one argument, the professional physicist can allude to another more abstruse one. Einstein's transformation of the clock paradox from a purported expression of the special theory to a purported expression of the much more complicated general theory is one example of such a defence. A more recent example is found in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's scornful account of Henri Bergson's attempt to investigate the clock/ twin paradox. Like "Kritikus", Bergson argued that the asymmetric outcome of the paradox was incompatible with the principle of relativity. Like Einstein, Sokal and Bricmont explain that Bergson has failed to recognise the asymmetric forces of acceleration at work. They go on to claim that the special theory tells us what happens under these circumstances and that the general theory only laboriously leads to the same conclusion. The suggestion that to vindicate this claim would be laborious functions in the same way as Einstein's elusive "calculations"; that is, it is not an explanation but an explanation-stopper. Sokal and Bricmont do not demonstrate how either the special theory or the general theory explain time dilation. Nor do they explain how their claim can be reconciled with Einstein explicitly limiting the special theory to objects travelling at a uniform velocity, nor account for why the circular journey of 1905 became the out and back journey of 1918. (...) Einstein's theory of relativity fails to reconcile the contradictory principles on which it is based. Rather than combining incompatible assumptions into an integrated whole, the theory allows the adept to step between incompatible assumptions in a way that hides these inconsistencies. The clock paradox is symptomatic of Einstein's failure, and its purported resolution is illustrative of the techniques that can be used to mask this failure. To uncover to the logical contradictions in the theory of relativity presents no very difficult task. However, the theory is impervious to such attacks as it is shielded by a professional constituency of supporters whose interests and authority are bound up in maintaining its inflated claims. Relativity theory, in short, is an ideology." Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." Is it true that "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity" and did not use it as support for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? Let us see: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." Clearly Einsteiniana's fundamental lie: "The Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant- speed-of-light postulate" was devised by Einstein himself. The lie, repeated countless times, is now a truth (Goebbels' principle): http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66 Stephen Hawking: "But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from." http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257 Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States) at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed! (...) The rest of my research work was going well, though, and a year or so later I was overjoyed to find that I had been awarded a Royal Society fellowship. This fellowship is the most desirable junior research position available in Britain, perhaps anywhere. It gives you funding and security for up to ten years as well as the freedom to do whatever you want and go wherever you want. At this stage, I decided that I had had enough of Cambridge, and that it was time to go somewhere different. I have always loved big cities, so I chose to go to Imperial College, in London, a top university for theoretical physics." http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement." http://www.techno-science.net/?ongle...efinition=1711 "En effet, dès la fin du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences (notamment, celle de Michelson) et observations laissaient apparaître une vitesse de la lumière dans le vide identique dans tous les repères inertiels." http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=9459 Paul Jorion: "Ce que Michelson et Morley parvinrent à établir grâce à l'expérience qu'ils réalisèrent en 1887 (Michelson la répéterait en 1897 à lUniversité de Chicago où il enseignait désormais), c'est que le principe newtonien ne s'applique pas à la lumière. Imaginons cette fois, que vous vous trouvez sur le toit d'un vaisseau intergalactique se déplaçant dans l'espace à la moitié de la vitesse de la lumière et que vous dirigez le faisceau de lumière émanant d'une torche d'un modèle courant dans la direction où progresse le vaisseau stellaire. Si le principe newtonien d'addition des vitesses s'appliquait à la lumière émanant de votre torche, elle voyagerait maintenant à une vitesse égale à une fois et demie celle de la lumière. Or, ce que l'« expérience cruciale » de Michelson et Morley révéla, c'est que ce n'est pas le cas : le principe d'additivité des vitesses ne s'applique pas : quelle que soit la vitesse à laquelle se déplace l'émetteur de lumière, la vitesse de la lumière dans le faisceau émis est c : 300 000 kilomètres par seconde, ni plus ni moins. Autrement dit, la vitesse de la lumière est constante (c représente en fait la vitesse de la lumière dans un vide)." http://philosophie.initiation.cours....-48902702.html "A la fin du XIXème siècle, les travaux de deux physiciens, Michelson et Morley, mirent en évidence le constat suivant : quelque soit le référentiel utilisé, la vitesse de la lumière est constante, ce qui est en totale contradiction avec la vision classique ayant cours à leur époque." http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/p...at/51relat.htm Claude SAINT-BLANQUET, Maître de conférences: "Compte tenu des résultats de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley, on doit renoncer à la transformation de Galilée." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE
Destruction of human rationality in Big Brother's world. First the lie
(2+2=5) is established: http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" Then believers are invited to discuss related questions, for instance: "When did Big Brother discover that 2+2=5?". Destruction of human rationality in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. First the lie ("The Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate") is established: http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/01/w...e-know-it.html "On July 22 the Einstein Papers Project, located at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, will release the 12th volume of letters written or received by Albert Einstein - 791 of them - plus transcripts of several notable lectures and interviews the physicist gave, covering the year 1921. It was a momentous 12 months.You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him, but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the observer's speed or direction of motion - an idea that forms the core of special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid out the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the Michelson-Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether, a substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but light has this property: if you are approaching a car that's moving 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are traveling at the speed of light, designated c, toward a light beam moving directly toward you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c." Then believers are invited to discuss related questions, for instance: http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/01/w...e-know-it.html "Where did Einstein get the idea that the speed of light is invariant, the key claim of special relativity (which also asserts that motion causes objects to contract and time to slow down, both of which depend on the speed of light remaining the same even for observers in motion)? In his autobiography, he recalled how, at age 16, he imagined riding on a light beam to chase another light beam, and realizing that his quarry would move at the speed of light, unchanged by his own motion relative to it. Einstein was born in 1879, and so would have been 16 in 1895, eight years after the Michelson-Morley experiment. It's highly unlikely that a teenager with no connection to the world of science would have heard about the experiment by then; the real question is whether he knew of it before 1905, when he was 26 and putting the finishing touches on special relativity." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEINIANA: COPERNICUS WRONG, EINSTEIN 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE TRUE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 26 | November 15th 08 01:03 AM |
CARLO ROVELLI ABOUT EINSTEIN 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | March 19th 08 01:38 PM |
EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT GOT RID OF THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 19th 07 03:14 AM |
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 16th 05 11:07 PM |
Speed of Light: A universal Constant? | Stan Byers | Astronomy Misc | 108 | April 28th 05 11:38 PM |