﻿ Einstein's Relativity: Born in Fraud
Discussion:
Einstein's Relativity: Born in Fraud
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-05 07:16:28 UTC
Raw Message
It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light. Einstein plagiarized ("borrowed") it from the Lorentz equations, called it "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the "postulate" (reverse engineering):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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."

Indeed, the idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is nonsense. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)

is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. The malignancy was there but it was still sterile - all validly deducible consequences of the false postulate were obviously absurd and repugnant. However Einstein's second sin - a fraudulent and invalid deduction - produced a miraculous result that was irresistibly attractive. In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS 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."

The conclusion

"The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is invalid. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B - in this sense the false postulate is sterile. In contrast, the invalidly deduced conclusion (asymmetrical time dilation) provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
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")."

The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic magic was born. The gullible world immediately fell in love with the idiocy:

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-05 12:33:17 UTC
Raw Message
The period 1905 - 1909 was difficult for Einstein. The Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and there was a scientist immeasurably more talented and intelligent than Einstein who was developing the emission theory while describing the consequences of Einstein's special relativity as absurd:

http://www.wikivalais.ch/images/c/c2/Communique_de_presse_Ritz.pdf
"Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque, en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz. C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner, qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des suites de sa tuberculose."

http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences..." [...] Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. [...] Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."

Walther Ritz died prematurely and the fraudster (Einstein) found it safe to inform the gullible world that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved the constancy of the speed of light (today's Einsteinians almost universally teach the same blatant lie):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-05 17:21:55 UTC
Raw Message
In 1911 Jean Perrin explains that the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light; Paul Langevin agrees reluctantly:

https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_Temps,_l%E2%80%99espace_et_la_causalit%C3%A9_dans_la_physique_contemporaine
Séance du 19 Octobre 1911, LE TEMPS, L'ESPACE ET LA CAUSALITÉ DANS LA PHYSIQUE MODERNE

M. PERRIN. - Il est remarquable qu'un retour à l'hypothèse de l'émission, en admettant que les particules lumineuses sont émises par chaque source avec une même vitesse par rapport à elle dans toutes les directions expliquerait, dans les conceptions de la Mécanique classique, le résultat négatif de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley quel que soit le mouvement d'ensemble du système. D'autre part les physiciens, en développant la théorie des ondulations au point de vue du principe de relativité, sont amenés à conclure que la lumière est inerte et probablement pesante. N'est-ce pas un retour vers l'ancienne théorie de l'émission ?

M. LANGEVIN. - Tout d'abord la théorie de l'émission sous sa forme ancienne compatible avec la mécanique s'est montrée impuissante à expliquer les phénomènes les plus simples de l'optique en particulier la réfraction et les interférences utilisées dans l'expérience même de Michelson et Morley. Elle a dû être abandonnée depuis l'expérience cruciale de Foucault sur la vitesse de la lumière dans les milieux réfringents. S'il est vrai que par un singulier retour le principe de relativité conduise à reconnaître à la lumière des propriétés analogues à l'inertie et même à la pesanteur, une théorie de l'émission qui représenterait ces faits devrait être singulièrement différente de la théorie ancienne et devrait, pour tenir compte de la nature commune des phénomènes optiques et électromagnétiques expliquer aussi ces derniers phénomènes; et comme ceux-ci paraissent exactement régis par les équations des Maxwell, la nouvelle théorie devrait correspondre à l'espace et au temps dont les transformations conservent leur forme à ces équations, c'est-à-dire à l'espace et au temps du groupe de Lorentz. Il est d'ailleurs bien difficile de discuter une théorie non encore formulée.

In 1922, thanks to Arthur Eddington's 1919 fraud, things are different. Paul Langevin explains that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed the constancy of the speed of light; Jean Perrin wholeheartedly agrees:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/966376/La-theorie-de-la-relativite-dEinstein-a-la-
Societe-francaise-de-philosophie, Séance du 6 avril 1922, LA THÉORIE DE LA RELATIVITÉ

M. LANGEVIN. - (...) La théorie de la Relativité restreinte repose sur deux axiomes fondamentaux : le principe de relativité et le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière. Selon le premier principe, les équations traduisant les lois qui régissent les phénomènes doivent avoir la même forme pour tous les systèmes d'inertie en translation uniforme les uns par rapport aux autres ; ce principe fondé sur l'expérience s'est toujours trouvé confirmé dans tous les domaines de la physique. L'isotropie de la vitesse de la lumière, autrement dit la constance de c quand on passe d'un système galiléen à un autre, est une conséquence de ces lois de l'électromagnétisme que personne ne peut raisonnablement songer à contester, et se trouve directement vérifiée par des expériences du genre de celle de Michelson.

M. PERRIN. - Je m'associe entièrement aux vues de M. Langevin et pense que la théorie a la plus grosse importance dans tous les domaines de la physique.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-06 09:40:22 UTC
Raw Message
The truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment: Without recourse to miraculous ad hoc hypotheses (in Banesh Hoffmann's words, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") the experiment unequivocally confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15 http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-07 07:48:46 UTC