A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

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

Albert Einstein the Doublethinker



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 30th 16, 01:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,521
Default Albert Einstein the Doublethinker

Einstein was a subtle practitioner of doublethink - he was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction and without any sign of remorse. So before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the traveling-twin-is-younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis taking into account only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The youthfulness of the traveling twin was totally unjustifiable - the stationary twin sees his brother's clock running slow, the traveling twin sees his brother's clock running slow, and "the sudden change of direction" involving acceleration is immaterial, as Einstein had implicitly assumed in his 1905 paper and explicitly announced in 1911:

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeto...vol3-trans/368
Albert Einstein 1911: "The 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."

In 1918 "the sudden change of direction" involving acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial:

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."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"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. (...) 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.."

Today's Einsteinians are all doublethinkers but not as subtle as Einstein. Subconsciously they accept both thesis and antithesis - the acceleration is immaterial and crucial at the same time - but on the conscious level can defend only one of them. So half of the Einsteinians teach that "the sudden change of direction" involving acceleration is immaterial, the other half teach that it is crucial:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, 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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Today's Einsteinians:

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images...es/f_pic31.jpg

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old March 30th 16, 10:58 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,521
Default Albert Einstein the Doublethinker

One of the most pernicious lies in Einstein schizophrenic world:

https://www.quora.com/Time-gets-slow...even-for-light
Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UCBerkeley, author of "Now-Physics of Time" (2016): "Compared to an Earth-bound clock, the clock in a frame moving at velocity v progresses at a slower rate."

Einstein's relativity does not predict anything like that. Its prediction is that the moving clock progresses at a slower rate as seen by the Earth-bound observer, but at a FASTER rate as seen by the moving observer. In other words, Einstein's relativity says something about the OBSERVATIONS of the two observers (these observations contradict one another), but it says nothing about the RATE of any clock.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the craftiest money-maker in Einsteiniana, goes even further:

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."

Einstein's relativity predicts just the opposite: Time will SPEED UP for you if you are set into motion. You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate of a clock which has remained at rest.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 1st 16, 11:32 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,521
Default Albert Einstein the Doublethinker

Ninety-nine percent of the Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below) fraudulently use the Michelson-Morley experiment as support for Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

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."

How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe? Einstein was the author of the hoax - the following text exposes him shamelessly teaching in 1921 that the experiment had shown constancy of the speed of light ("Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K"):

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."

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
ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE DEBUNKS EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 July 12th 15 09:47 PM
ALBERT EINSTEIN AND BIG BROTHER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 17th 14 08:10 PM
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE REFUTES ALBERT EINSTEIN Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 12 01:21 PM
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.