Einstein's Method: Explaining Nonsense in Terms of More Nonsense

By combining his two postulates Einstein deduced the obvious nonsense that the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the motion of the observer (any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers). Einstein "explained" the nonsense in terms of spacetime - a grotesque centaur that killed physics afterwards:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits...teins-time.htm
Peter Galison: "First, he stipulated that all the laws of physics - including electricity and magnetism - were the same in any constantly moving frame of reference. Then he added a seemingly simple (and modest) second assumption: Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast its source is moving. To anyone thinking of ether this was not so strange: Move your hands at any reasonable speed through a room of still air; once you clap your hands the sound waves propagate through the room at the same speed - independent of the original motion of your hands. Maybe light was like that: a lamp moving in the ether simply excited light waves that radiated out at a single speed independent of the motion of the lamp. Yet these two reasonable starting assumptions appeared to contradict one another. Suppose lamps were flying this way and that at various speeds, but that in some frame the light beams from those lamps were all traveling at 186,000 miles per second, just the speed predicted by the equations of electrodynamics. Wouldn't those same beams of light appear to be traveling at different speeds when seen from a different, moving frame of reference? If that was so, then the equations of electrodynamics would only be valid in one frame of reference, violating Einstein's first principle. It was to resolve this apparent contradiction that Einstein made his single most dramatic move: he criticized the very idea of time as it was usually understood. In particular, he relentlessly pursued the meaning of "simultaneity." Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony."

Nowadays physicists are desperately trying to get rid of the idiotic spacetime but it is too late:

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-R.../9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev

Minkowski helps Einstein in explaining the nonsense (speed of light independent of the motion of the observer) in terms of more nonsense (space and time intertwined into spacetime):

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined."

Any interpretation of the Doppler effect proves, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) 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. These results depend on the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general) there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity. (...) 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, according to the above interpretations,

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

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

f' = γf(1+v/c) = γ(c+v)/λ

when v is high (relativistic corrections are not negligible). 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.

Here are explicit refutations of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"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."

The dilemma in physics in 1905:

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/im...0819051851.jpg

Pentcho Valev

Why does the stationary twin get older than the traveling twin? Einsteinians give a breathtaking answer: As the traveling twin turns around, "enough strangeness" occurs, and this "enough strangeness" makes the distant stationary twin on the Earth older:

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

Needless to say, Einsteinians would not teach such nonsense if Einstein himself had not introduced it in 1918:

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."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians explain Einstein's nonsense in terms of much more nonsense:

http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries...bert-dijkgraaf
Robbert Dijkgraaf, director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton: "On the other hand, we know that time has these very bizarre properties, that it apparently can be created in the Big Bang, and if you think about black holes, time actually stops. So our concept of time might be too naïve and I'm personally very interested in whether or not we can use some of our ideas that we have seen in other areas. For instance, we have been able to make sense of space in a more significant way. Perhaps the greatest breakthrough during the last 20 years was actually by Juan Maldacena--he's here at the Institute too--who showed that in certain physical systems, space can emerge out of it naturally. The physical system doesn't have space but in certain limits, certain space comes out and relativity comes out. So there's something more fundamental than space, something more fundamental than Einstein's equations. Now you might think that this also works for time but time is always different. It has a completely different role than space. Now I can move up and down in space. I can't move up and down in time. I'm actually frozen now in a certain moment in time. I have to go through each time; I can't see my whole history at once. I can see my whole body at once, so it's a very asymmetric experience. You can try to use string theory and other theoretical ideas; you can play any of these games with time that we have been playing with space. I think it's somehow absolutely crucial because the really big open questions are still all tied in, in a new or improved way of looking at time and I think we all have basically kind of a gut intuition how it would work like that. So if you think about time as a river, you can say well, how do I think if I have a river and I go upstream, upstream, upstream; it becomes less volume and at some point you know. I get a little brook and perhaps you get a few little streams, and then what do you get? A few raindrops. So at some point the whole idea of the river disappears and there's something else. Well here we know it's H2O molecules or something. So I think all these efforts are finding something--what are the molecules of time? What are the bits of time?"

It is difficult to imagine that someone else would be able to put so much nonsense in such a short text. Robbert Dijkgraaf seems to be a champion in Einstein schizophrenic world.

Pentcho Valev