Arguments in Post-Sanity (Einsteinian) Physics

Skip to first unread message

Dec 29, 2021, 11:24:56 AM12/29/21
"Photons are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s"

There is no definition of "massless photons". Even if there were one, the antecedent, "photons are massless", would not entail constancy of the speed of light. "They always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s" would remain non-sequitur.

Einstein (later parroted by Feynman used to teach that the variable speed of light contradicts the principle of relativity. So the constant speed of light fraudulently became a logical consequence of (that is, just as true as) the principle of relativity:

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V."

Needless to say, today's Einsteinians diligently teach Einstein's idiotic argument:

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."

Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics."

Professor Raymond Flood: "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."

Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second."

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 a certain velocity."

See more here:

Pentcho Valev

Dec 29, 2021, 3:57:59 PM12/29/21
It follows logically from Einstein's 1905 postulates that, if two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system (SYMMETRIC time dilation). Here is an obvious implication:

Time SPEEDS UP for any traveler.

That is, any traveler who checks stationary clocks against his spaceship's clocks will find stationary clocks slow and his spaceship's clocks FAST. This also means that the traveler sees himself aging FASTER than stationary people.

Some (very few) Einsteinians obey logic and teach the correct deduction:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."

"The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] ...the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself."

High priests in the Einstein cult (including Einstein himself) almost universally abuse logic and teach ASYMMETRIC time dilation: the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast. Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. Here is an obvious implication:

Time SLOWS DOWN for the traveler.

High priests teaching the asymmetric-time-dilation hoax:

Brian Greene:

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..."

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion..."

Richard Feynman: "Now if all moving clocks run slower, if no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate, we shall just have to say, in a certain sense, that time itself appears to be slower in a space ship."

Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "...Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

Jim Al-Khalili: "Einstein showed that for anything (or anyone) travelling at speeds approaching that of light...time literally runs more slowly."

Why do high priests abuse logic and teach asymmetric time dilation, knowing that it does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates? Because symmetric time dilation doesn't, but asymmetric time dilation does imply TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle (idiocy) 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")."

More here:

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages