info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Invalid Logic of Einstein's Relativity
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jan 6, 2023, 12:22:12 PM1/6/23
to
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics 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." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
This argument of Einstein is invalid. The conclusion, "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B", is non sequitur - does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates.
Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail that
the moving clock lags behind the stationary one as judged from the stationary system, and the stationary clock lags behind the moving one as judged from the moving system (SYMMETRIC time dilation).
Einstein abused logic in 1905 and "deduced" from the postulates that
the moving clock lags behind the stationary one as judged from both systems (ASYMMETRIC time dilation).
Why did Einstein abuse logic? Because SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, entails no predictions. In contrast, ASYMMETRIC time dilation, the non sequitur, predicts TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle that converted Einstein into a deity:
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
This argument of Einstein is invalid. The conclusion, "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B", is non sequitur - does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates.
Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail that
the moving clock lags behind the stationary one as judged from the stationary system, and the stationary clock lags behind the moving one as judged from the moving system (SYMMETRIC time dilation).
Einstein abused logic in 1905 and "deduced" from the postulates that
the moving clock lags behind the stationary one as judged from both systems (ASYMMETRIC time dilation).
Why did Einstein abuse logic? Because SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, entails no predictions. In contrast, ASYMMETRIC time dilation, the non sequitur, predicts TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle that converted Einstein into a deity:
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jan 6, 2023, 5:56:09 PM1/6/23
to
Brian Greene teaches ASYMMETRIC time dilation (the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast):
https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157
Why does Greene teach the non sequitur and ignore SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction from Einstein's 1905 postulates (If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system)?
Because ASYMMETRIC time dilation, the non sequitur, entails miracles (time travel into the future, youthfulness of the traveling twin, etc.) while SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, entails nothing.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157
Why does Greene teach the non sequitur and ignore SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction from Einstein's 1905 postulates (If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system)?
Because ASYMMETRIC time dilation, the non sequitur, entails miracles (time travel into the future, youthfulness of the traveling twin, etc.) while SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, entails nothing.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jan 7, 2023, 6:00:10 AM1/7/23
to
Over the years, the invalid logic of Einstein's relativity became idiotic. Here is an incomparable syllogism:
Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).
Premise 2: Einstein said that the speed of light is a law of physics.
Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.
Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity." https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).
Premise 2: Einstein said that the speed of light is a law of physics.
Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.
Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity." https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages