If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument
In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion that "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 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." Actually the conclusion "The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B" does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates  the argument is invalid. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates: Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system. Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system. Conclusions 1 and 2, just because they are valid consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constantspeedoflight postulate, entail contradiction (absurdity). Einstein hid the absurdity by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation  the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" was a direct implication  science died and magic was born. Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument
In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that his special relativity was unable to resolve the clock paradox but his general relativity did have the solution. As the traveling clock turns around, a homogeneous (!?!) gravitational field appears for a short while, and as a result the distant stationary clock becomes much faster than the traveling clock:
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive xaxis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive xaxis 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 xaxis 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." The fraud is obvious. The HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field was an idiocy, and if it was general relativity that explained why the stationary clock was fast, how did Einstein know that in 1905? Herbert Dingle was desperately asking essentially the same question in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late  the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed: http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularlyrunning clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slowerworking clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balanceclock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" Pentcho Valev 
#3




Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument
Einstein's 1905 false constantspeedoflight postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails SYMMETRICAL time dilation  either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. This is idiotic, not even wrong  the readings of the two clocks are incommensurable. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published.. Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation  the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST:
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." x Asymmetrical time dilation is false and does not follow from Einstein's postulates (symmetrical time dilation does), but, on the other hand, it does not involve incommensurability (idiocy) and for that reason sounds much more plausible than symmetrical time dilation. And its invaluable advantage (for the Einsteinian ideology) comes from the "travel into the future" it implies  in 1905 the dull and apparently futureless 19th century physics became a fairy tale that went beyond any imagination. There was no need for organized brainwashing  the gullible world automatically got brainwashed from the very beginning: http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of nonunderstanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out." Nowadays physicists wrestle with Einstein's idiotic relative time and cry in despair, but continue to fool the brainwashed world by teaching the fascinating implications of asymmetrical time dilation (moving clocks run slow, twins age differently, moving observers travel into the future, etc.): 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.amazon.com/FasterThanSp.../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 cafÃ©s 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 welldefined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." https://www.newscientist.com/article...wardsintime/ "[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.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...realityreview "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/TimeR.../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.edge.org/responsedetail/26563 Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE Nima ArkaniHamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." https://edge.org/responsedetail/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..." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html "Rethinking Einstein: The end of spacetime [...] 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 spacetime 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." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...timeproblem/ "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a fourdimensional "spacetime" fabric." https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/re...essonsquantum Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...cience.aac6498 "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global â€“ all clocks "tick" uniformly." http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0610057.pdf "One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames." http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/ "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the SchrÃ¶dinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the fourdimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true.." Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Einstein's Special Relativity: False Postulate, Invalid Deduction  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  July 8th 16 11:29 AM 
EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  4  July 22nd 15 07:57 AM 
EINSTEIN'S 1905 HOAX  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  September 11th 14 06:51 PM 
EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  July 27th 14 09:45 PM 
EINSTEIN'S 1905 GAME  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  July 12th 13 11:17 AM 