A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 2nd 15, 02:43 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "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."

This is perhaps the most fraudulent text in the history of science. There can be no calculation showing that "this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4". The turning-around "gravitational field" (acceleration) varies with time (from zero to some value, back to zero, then to some other value, back to zero again) and all these variations are arbitrary to some extent - they depend on the preferences of the operator. So no calculation at all is possible, let alone one showing that something constitutes "exactly twice as much" as something else.

Moreover, everybody (except for the silliest Einsteinians) know that the turning-around acceleration ("gravitational field") is immaterial:

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

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."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 2nd 15, 05:09 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): 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."

In Einstein's 1905 scenario there is no turning-around period (only the outward part of the trip is considered):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

So, in the 1905 scenario, in accordance with David Morin's statement above, (an observer in the system of) the moving clock (initially at A) observes the stationary clock (at B) runing slow all along, which means that Einstein's conclusion is invalid (does not follow from the postulates). The valid (even though absurd) conclusion is:

Either clock is running slow, as judged from the other clock's system.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum. In a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world, the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, would be declared false.

Einsteinians may be tempted to try to save the theory by referring to the initial acceleration of the moving clock in Einstein's 1905 scenario, but that would be an unfortunate step - things will get worse.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 3rd 15, 04:44 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

As John Norton suggests, today's Einsteinians ("later writers") are "almost universally" lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment - they teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed 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."

How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe? The following text exposes Einstein as the author of the hoax (" 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
EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 18th 14 09:33 AM
EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 13th 13 10:20 PM
Blatant plug for new astronomy club in Kent Manky Badger UK Astronomy 0 October 27th 07 10:08 PM
THE MOST BLATANT LIE OF EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 15th 07 03:47 PM
Here's a blatant for sale ad Joe S. Amateur Astronomy 10 May 27th 04 02:13 PM


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


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.