EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF INCONSISTENCY

[Pentcho Valev]

After long wrestling with human rationality and his conscience, Einstein managed to convince the gullible world that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

The gullible world embraced the idiocy but still the true antithesis, "the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer", was not completely eradicated and can be found, in an implicit or even explicit form, in interpretations of the Doppler effect for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

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

So Einstein introduced INCONSISTENCY in physics - a malignant neoplasm spreading everywhere, explaining and predicting everything and killing the whole scientific organism in the end:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/rationality%20of%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev

[Dan Christensen]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 8:46:04 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> After long wrestling...


Pentcho Valev FAQ

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm


John Baez, "The Crackpot Index"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Pentcho Valev]

As shown in the picture below, according to Einstein's relativity, a single MOVING clock shows less time elapsed than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/Clocks_1.png

However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's 1905 postulates entail that this time the STATIONARY clock shows less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that moving clocks run both slower and faster than stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his stationary brother.

We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

The picture has been taken from this site:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/index.html

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2B0036DC553691775E012D449DEC62/ant_border_rectangle.png

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev