info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein Fools the World for the First Time
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 10, 2022, 1:16:29 PM8/10/22
to
In John Stachel's text below "seems to be" should be replaced by "is obviously". Einstein wrestled with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before fooling the gullible world into accepting the obvious nonsense:
John Stachel: "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." https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light:
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
"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." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is Vo, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c+Vo, in violation of Einstein's relativity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "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." https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light:
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
"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." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is Vo, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c+Vo, in violation of Einstein's relativity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 10, 2022, 2:39:56 PM8/10/22
to
Einstein fools the gullible world for the second time:
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 "peculiar consequence" is non sequitur - does not follow from the premises, Einstein's 1905 two postulates.
The two postulates of special relativity, true or false, entail:
Valid deduction: 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:
Non sequitur: The moving clock lags behind the stationary one AS JUDGED FROM BOTH SYSTEMS (asymmetric time dilation).
Why did Einstein abuse logic? Because the valid deduction doesn't, but the non sequitur 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")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
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 "peculiar consequence" is non sequitur - does not follow from the premises, Einstein's 1905 two postulates.
The two postulates of special relativity, true or false, entail:
Valid deduction: 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:
Non sequitur: The moving clock lags behind the stationary one AS JUDGED FROM BOTH SYSTEMS (asymmetric time dilation).
Why did Einstein abuse logic? Because the valid deduction doesn't, but the non sequitur 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")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages