EINSTEINIANA: FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Einstein's "logic" in the above text: In a gravitational field, the
speed of light "varies with position", that is, with the gravitational
potential. Therefore, if the gravitational potential does not vary
with position (if the field is zero), then the speed of light is
constant. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true.

Initially, this "logic" makes believers sing "Divine Einstein" and
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers tumble to the
floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

A VALID argument based on Einstein's equivalence principle (Einstein
was well aware of this VALID argument): If the speed of light varies
with the gravitational potential, then, in the absence of a
gravitational field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the
light source. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is false.

The following application of Einstein's equivalence principle might
prove instructive:

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).

Is c' equal to c or is c' different from c? That is, is Einstein's
1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate correct or not? No priest in
Einsteiniana would directly answer this fatal question - the crimestop
is absolute in this case:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Still Einsteiniana's priests find it safe to use, in calculations, the
correct answer to the fatal question:

The correct answer: c'c as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
light.

Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

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), which means that in
any version of Einstein's general relativity we have c'c.

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

When the top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the emitter), a receiver on the ground measures
the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), a result confirmed by the Pound-
Rebka experiment, and the speed to be c'=c(1+gh/c^2). In the period
1907-1914 Einstein had to put up with this conclusion of Newton's
emission theory of light and even used it explicitly. Still, in 1911,
he advanced a fundamental camouflage nowadays called gravitational
time dilation:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Therefore the two clocks in S1 and S2 do not
both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time in S1 with the
clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock which goes 1+phi/
c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared with U at one and
the same place. (...) For if we measure the velocity of light at
different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K',
employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the same
magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our fundamental
assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said
we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring time at places
with differing gravitation potential. For measuring time at a place
which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates, has the
gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when removed
to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c²) times more slowly than
the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-ordinates. If we
call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the
velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will
be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

So in 1911 the gravitational time dilation becomes the real effect
while the variable speed of light turns out to be an artefact - one
can only obtain it with the help of nonidentical clocks. However in
the subsequent development of Divine Albert's Divine Theory the speed
of light did remain variable, even more variable than in Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-onli...k/VSL/VSL.html
"In two works from 1907 and 1911 Einstein introduces a variable speed
of light. Sometimes this is taken as a contradiction to the constancy
of the speed of light, which was postulated in the foundation of
Special Relativity in 1905. However there is no contradiction at all -
even if in the fully developed GR from 1916 there is a variable speed
of light."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full
formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can
find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The
Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in
section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of
light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is:
c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to
the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a
more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full
theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For
the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28):
c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation
in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Apart from being variable in a gravitational field (more variable than
in Newton's emission theory of light), the speed of light is also
constant in Divine Albert's Divine Theory (due to gravitational time
dilation). Steve Carlip would say that the speed of light is both
variable and constant:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plus-vite-lu.../dp/2100072471
Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIÈRE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51:
"En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la
vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont
soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein,
alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son
existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit
ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi! Que la
vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la
ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même."

http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/2738...668551-5396107
Alexandre Moatti (p. 140): "La théorie corpusculaire se heurtait
toutefois à une contradiction expérimentale de taille : elle
impliquait que la lumière fût non seulement déviée mais aussi ralentie
par un champ de gravitation (comme le serait un faisceau de
corpuscules), alors que toutes les mesures donnaient une constance de
la vitesse de la lumière, indépendante de la vitesse de la source, et
indépendante de toute masse gravitationnelle à côté de laquelle elle
passerait !"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. 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. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...
(...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with
clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive
at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data
with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based
on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from
K."

Einstein is lying blatantly: Section XII does not contain any results
showing why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run
FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in
Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts
RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers - either observer sees
the other observer's clock running SLOW. The Lorentz transformation
does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which
(the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

A correct logic:

PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).

CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (or with the Lorentz transformation), an observer "sitting
eccentrically" on the periphery of the rotating disc sees a clock at
rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery,
running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks fixed on the
periphery. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate (or with the Lorentz
transformation), a virtually inertial clock fixed on the rotating
periphery will be seen, by an observer at rest outside the disc,
running SLOWER than clocks at rest situated outside the disc. Clearly
we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 9, 7:37*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...
(...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with
clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive
at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data
with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based
on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from
K."

Einstein is lying blatantly: Section XII does not contain any results
showing why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run
FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in
Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts
RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers - either observer sees
the other observer's clock running SLOW. The Lorentz transformation
does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which
(the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

A correct logic:

PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).

CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (or with the Lorentz transformation), an observer "sitting
eccentrically" on the periphery of the rotating disc sees a clock at
rest situated outside the disc, close to the rotating periphery,
running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks fixed on the
periphery. On the other hand, again in accordance with Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate (or with the Lorentz
transformation), a virtually inertial clock fixed on the rotating
periphery will be seen, by an observer at rest outside the disc,
running SLOWER than clocks at rest situated outside the disc. Clearly
we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev


Perhaps your objections to relativity stem from it being too complex
for your simple mind to understand?

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (...) Any ray
of light moves in the "stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. (...) 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. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

This is a biased scenario presenting onesidedly the RECIPROCAL time
dilation. A non-biased scenario:

"...at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which,
viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous." The front end of a
very long train "is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B."
All along the train there are synchronous (viewed in the system of the
train) clocks which, on the arrival of the front end of the train at B
(the back end has not reached A yet), stop both ticking and moving
"with the velocity v" simultaneously (simultaneity defined in the
system of the train).

If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, then a
clock at the front end of the train lags behind the stationary clocks
at A and B. This is established by both observers (the stationary one
and the one in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

On the other hand, if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true, then the stationary clock at A lags behind all
clocks in the train, the clock at the front end of the train included.
This is established by both observers (the stationary one and the one
in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 10, 12:47*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (...) Any ray
of light moves in the "stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. (...) 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. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

This is a biased scenario presenting onesidedly the RECIPROCAL time
dilation. A non-biased scenario:

"...at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which,
viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous." The front end of a
very long train "is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B."
All along the train there are synchronous (viewed in the system of the
train) clocks which, on the arrival of the front end of the train at B
(the back end has not reached A yet), stop both ticking and moving
"with the velocity v" simultaneously (simultaneity defined in the
system of the train).

If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, then a
clock at the front end of the train lags behind the stationary clocks
at A and B. This is established by both observers (the stationary one
and the one in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

On the other hand, if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true, then the stationary clock at A lags behind all
clocks in the train, the clock at the front end of the train included.
This is established by both observers (the stationary one and the one
in the train) after clocks in the train have stopped.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev


Cybernetics is much more important than relativity since it tells us
how huge artificial minds are self-organized.

Einstein's 1918 fundamental dishonesty: If there is no acceleration,
the twin paradox would not exist:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate
systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this
theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated)
coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which
sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and
uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that
is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that
after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no
contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory.
(...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a
velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2.
However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during
partial process 3. 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 consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought
up."

Further development of Einstein's 1918 fundamental dishonesty: The
twin paradox would exist even if there is no acceleration:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44:
"11.19. Modified twin paradox ***
Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each
have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to
the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also,
in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the
left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to
read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the
readings on their clocks. At this moment, let A's clock read TA, and
let C's clock read TC.
(a) Working in A's frame, show that TC = TA/(gamma).
(b) Working in B's frame, show again that TC = TA/(gamma).
(c) Working in C's frame, show again that TC = TA/(gamma)."

G. Burniston Brown, Peter Hayes and Herbert Dingle fight Einstein's
fundamental dishonesty (Dingle even shows the solution: "ALL MOTION,
INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ"):

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."

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different
rates of ageing to result from motion which belongs no more to one
twin than to the other: that is impossible. It is impossible to
exaggerate the importance of this result, for this theory is, by
common consent, "taken for granted" in Max Born's words, in all modern
atomic research. and it determines the course of practically all
current developments in physical science, theoretical and
experimental, whether concerned with the laboratory or with the
universe. To continue to use the theory without discrimination,
therefore, is not only to follow a false trail in the investigation of
nature, but also to risk physical disaster on the unforeseeable
scale... (...) But it is now clear that the interpretation of those
[Lorentz] equations as constituting a basis for a new kinematics,
displacing that of Galileo and Newton, which is the essence of the
special relativity theory, leads inevitably to impossibilities and
therefore cannot be true. Either there is an absolute standard of rest
- call it the ether as with Maxwell. or the universe as with Mach, or
absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION,
INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ. It
remains to be determined, by a valid experimental determination of THE
TRUE RELATION OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT TO THAT OF ITS SOURCE, which of
these alternatives is the true one. In the meantime, the fiction of
"space-time" as an objective element of nature, and the associated
pseudo-concepts such as "time-dilation", that violate "saving common
sense", should be discharged from physics and philosophy..."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1921 fundamental dishonesty (nowadays universally accepted
as an absolute truth): The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (that
is, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate):

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."

Clever Einsteinians, driven by doublethink, counteract Einstein's 1921
fundamental dishonesty: Before the introduction of the ad hoc length-
contraction hypothesis by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the Michelson-Morley
experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY showed that the speed of light does depend on
the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory
of light (that is, the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes Einstein's
1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate):

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."

http://www.amazon.fr/Introduction-re...dp/B000YZAES4/
Introduction à la relativité
James Hammond Smith (Auteur), Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond (Auteur),
Philippe Brenier (Auteur), Guy Plaut (Auteur)
"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

Fundamental dishonesty: Einstein deduces the gravitational time
dilation from the Lorentz transformation:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html
Albert Einstein: "If v0 represents the number of ticks of the clock
per unit time ("rate" of the clock) relative to K when the clock is at
rest, then the "rate" of the clock (v) when it is moving relative to K
with a velocity v, but at rest with respect to the disc, will, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION XII, be given by... (...) In the first place,
we see from this expression that two clocks of identical construction
will go at different rates when situated at different distances from
the centre of the disc. This result is also valid from the standpoint
of an observer who is rotating with the disc. Now, as judged from the
disc, the latter is in a gravitational field of potential [phi], hence
the result we have obtained will hold quite generally for
gravitational fields. Furthermore, we can regard an atom which is
emitting spectral lines as a clock..."

Einsteiniana's priests fiercely teach the gravitational time dilation
but never deduce it from the Lorentz transformation:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14 ( http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...rin/CH13.PDF):
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Another prediction of general relativity is that
time should appear to slower near a massive body like the earth. This
is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its
frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the
greater the energy, the higher frequency. As light travels upward in
the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency
goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest
and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that
everything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was
tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the
top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was
nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with
general relativity."

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket
ship - that is, at the front end - and we put another identical clock
at the "tail," as in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If
we compare these two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock
at the head seems to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see
that, imagine that the front clock emits a flash of light each second,
and that you are sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light
flashes with the ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the
distance L1 and the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It
is a shorter distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher
speed at the time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the
two flashes were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would
arrive at clock B with a separation somewhat less than one second,
since the second flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "D'un point de vue plus général, puisque la fréquence
d'une raie spectrale définit une "horloge" à l'échelle atomique, le
principe d'équivalence prédit l'existence d'une dilatation
gravitationnelle des durées lors de la comparaison de deux horloges
situées à des niveaux de potentiel gravitationnel différents."

http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/01...uete-des-temps
Etienne Klein: "Mais pour la relativité générale d'Einstein, l'espace
et le temps sont déformés par les objets qu'ils contiennent. Ainsi le
temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon au voisinage d'une étoile très
dense qu'à proximité d'une planète."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

Yet Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, admits (driven by
doublethink) that the gravitational time dilation is not real. He even
hints at a well known (but extremely dangerous for Einsteinana) fact:
the gravitational redshift arises from the acceleration of photons in
a gravitational field, identical to the acceleration experienced by
cannonballs, in accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) :

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. IT ARISES FROM WHAT BEFALLS
LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF
GRAVITATION."

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

On Apr 13, 12:55*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Fundamental dishonesty: Einstein deduces the gravitational time
dilation from the Lorentz transformation:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html
Albert Einstein: "If v0 represents the number of ticks of the clock
per unit time ("rate" of the clock) relative to K when the clock is at
rest, then the "rate" of the clock (v) when it is moving relative to K
with a velocity v, but at rest with respect to the disc, will, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION XII, be given by... (...) In the first place,
we see from this expression that two clocks of identical construction
will go at different rates when situated at different distances from
the centre of the disc. This result is also valid from the standpoint
of an observer who is rotating with the disc. Now, as judged from the
disc, the latter is in a gravitational field of potential [phi], hence
the result we have obtained will hold quite generally for
gravitational fields. Furthermore, we can regard an atom which is
emitting spectral lines as a clock..."

Einsteiniana's priests fiercely teach the gravitational time dilation
but never deduce it from the Lorentz transformation:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14 (http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...anika/David%20...
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Another prediction of general relativity is that
time should appear to slower near a massive body like the earth. This
is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its
frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the
greater the energy, the higher frequency. As light travels upward in
the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency
goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest
and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that
everything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was
tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the
top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was
nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with
general relativity."

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket
ship - that is, at the front end - and we put another identical clock
at the "tail," as in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If
we compare these two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock
at the head seems to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see
that, imagine that the front clock emits a flash of light each second,
and that you are sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light
flashes with the ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the
distance L1 and the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It
is a shorter distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher
speed at the time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the
two flashes were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would
arrive at clock B with a separation somewhat less than one second,
since the second flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "D'un point de vue plus général, puisque la fréquence
d'une raie spectrale définit une "horloge" à l'échelle atomique, le
principe d'équivalence prédit l'existence d'une dilatation
gravitationnelle des durées lors de la comparaison de deux horloges
situées à des niveaux de potentiel gravitationnel différents."

http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/01...uete-des-temps
Etienne Klein: "Mais pour la relativité générale d'Einstein, l'espace
et le temps sont déformés par les objets qu'ils contiennent. Ainsi le
temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon au voisinage d'une étoile très
dense qu'à proximité d'une planète."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...hought-we-knew...
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

Yet Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, admits (driven by
doublethink) that the gravitational time dilation is not real. He even
hints at a well known (but extremely dangerous for Einsteinana) fact:
the gravitational redshift arises from the acceleration of photons in
a gravitational field, identical to the acceleration experienced by
cannonballs, in accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) :

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. IT ARISES FROM WHAT BEFALLS
LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF
GRAVITATION."

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


It's the hallmark of the unintelligent to keep repeating the same
argument ignoring all feedback from constructive criticizers.