info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 21, 2015, 3:53:36 AM5/21/15
to
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/521286a.html
Physics: Fighting for time, Nature 521, 286-287 (21 May 2015): "...tensions between Einstein and French philosopher Henri Bergson. Their quarrel about the nature of time is the subject of The Scientist and the Philosopher, a hefty, stimulating study by science historian Jimena Canales. (...) Canales aims to clarify the essence of the quarrel without taking sides. Reading between the lines, she seems to sympathize with maverick twentieth-century physicist and critic of relativity theory Herbert Dingle, who lamented that in general the scientist "understands what he is doing about as well as a centipede understands how he walks"."
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"
Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock. Neither clock is privileged. Yet in 1905 Einstein didn't understand that:
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 Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:
moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.
Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:
moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.
The aftermath:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
Pentcho Valev
Physics: Fighting for time, Nature 521, 286-287 (21 May 2015): "...tensions between Einstein and French philosopher Henri Bergson. Their quarrel about the nature of time is the subject of The Scientist and the Philosopher, a hefty, stimulating study by science historian Jimena Canales. (...) Canales aims to clarify the essence of the quarrel without taking sides. Reading between the lines, she seems to sympathize with maverick twentieth-century physicist and critic of relativity theory Herbert Dingle, who lamented that in general the scientist "understands what he is doing about as well as a centipede understands how he walks"."
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"
Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock. Neither clock is privileged. Yet in 1905 Einstein didn't understand that:
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 Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:
moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.
Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:
moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.
The aftermath:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
May 23, 2015, 4:35:29 AM5/23/15
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwiayZ3sH7U
Edward Teller: Einstein didn't know what he was talking about
...or was just lying, or both. Here is the proof:
In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."
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. How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe?
Either Einstein was the author of the hoax, or, as Edward Teller suggests, Einstein didn't know what he was talking about (or both). The following text exposes Einstein shamelessly teaching in 1921 that " 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/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
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
Edward Teller: Einstein didn't know what he was talking about
...or was just lying, or both. Here is the proof:
In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."
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. How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe?
Either Einstein was the author of the hoax, or, as Edward Teller suggests, Einstein didn't know what he was talking about (or both). The following text exposes Einstein shamelessly teaching in 1921 that " 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/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
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
0 new messages