EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION IS ABSURD

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This means that, according to special relativity, if a single clock faces a series of clocks go by with uniform speed, then observers in both frames will see the difference between the time shown on the multiple comoving clocks and the time shown on the single clock increase (this is obvious if the multiple clocks are synchronous; if they are not, the statement remains valid but may need elaboration if the opponents are not very intelligent):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ty/clocks..gif

Let us assume that the ants moving along the rectangular line are travelling at 87% the speed of light:

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png

In accordance with what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them. According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light:

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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev

Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to change location, that is, to be at point A and then at point B in the opposite reference frame. If the scenario craftily precludes such a displacement, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the opposite clock's retardation can be demonstrated.

This is the whole secret behind the twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to be at point A and then at point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is reduced, in the scenario taught by relativists, to a single point (where the travelling twin and/or the travelling clock are located).

As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen at point A and then at point B in the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart.

Pentcho Valev

The gist of the argument:

A single clock passes a series of clocks and is consecutively compared with them:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ty/clocks..gif

According to special relativity, if the single clock is moving and the series of clocks stationary, the consecutive comparison shows that the single clock runs slower than the series of clocks. If the single clock is stationary and the series of clocks moving, the consecutive comparison shows that, AGAIN, the single clock runs slower than the series of clocks.

Pentcho Valev

I had problems with my English in explaining this pictu

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/clocks.gif

so here is Tom Roberts' elaboration in sci.physics.relativity:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....s/POYiOnmvcekJ

And my reply:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....s/6X4wjB3MP0IJ

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 2:49:21 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."



This means that, according to special relativity, if a single clock faces a series of clocks go by with uniform speed, then observers in both frames will see the difference between the time shown on the multiple comoving clocks and the time shown on the single clock increase (this is obvious if the multiple clocks are synchronous; if they are not, the statement remains valid but may need elaboration if the opponents are not very intelligent):



http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/clocks.gif



Let us assume that the ants moving along the rectangular line are travelling at 87% the speed of light:



http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png



In accordance with what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them. According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.



Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light:



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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."


Pentcho Valev

Right, but then he had 15+ kids and was always a top notch wife beater. Obviously anyone that good at screwing anything that moved and beating up anyone getting in his way, had to be really smart at something and subsequently worshiped by other men of wealth and power.

http://nelmezzodel.wordpress.com/200...stic-violence/

Apparently the next best thing to Einstein was really pathetic, so what other next best choice of someone Jewish did they have? (practically nothing at the time)

This isn't saying that Einstein wasn't a keeper, because he had some really good ideas and even eventually taught others well, which is considerably better than most. Without his relativity theories, there'd be at least thousands of highly paid physicists as either unemployed and/or as relatively unemployable (pun intended).