﻿ In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing!
Discussion:
In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing!
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-03 10:13:12 UTC
Réponse
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..."

The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. The malignancy was there but it was sterile - in a VALID deduction, no prediction about the clocks' readings was possible. However Einstein's second sin - a fraudulent and INVALID deduction - did lead to a prediction. In 1905 Einstein deduced, 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 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."

Einstein's 1905 conclusion

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

did not follow from his postulates - the argument was INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY followed 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 provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). 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")."

To make the long story short:

Conclusions about time VALIDLY deducible from the postulates were UNPREDICTIVE.

Predictive conclusions were NON SEQUITUR.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-03 14:31:40 UTC
Réponse
Raw Message
In 1905 Einstein didn't mention the idiocies of length contraction - if he had, his paper would not have been published. Length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies unlimited compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The compressed object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture:

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-03 19:11:51 UTC
Réponse