Einsteinium's Lunacy-1

[The World]

Einsteinium's Lunacy-1
Many (if not all) clever theoreticians find Einstein's 1918 paper
"explaining" the twin paradox idiotic:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_the...
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"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."
Yet in the era of Postscientism clever theoreticians are subtle
practitioners of doublethink so the idiocy found in Einstein's 1918
paper makes them sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity". Sound criticism that somehow
crosses the crimestop wall is just ignored:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.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/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
"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 ..
Pentcho Valev