Pentcho Valev
2017-03-10 08:39:13 UTC
James H. Smith, Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity." http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-James-Smith/dp/048668895X
"Out of logical necessity" in this case means that Einstein, as he himself admits, plagiarized the principle of the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, 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..."
But there was an awful problem. The constancy of the speed of light as established by the Lorentz equations was (and still is) an obvious nonsense:
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."
In the end Einstein did introduce the nonsense (he had no conscience) by advancing his 1905 false second ("light") postulate, but a new awful problem emerged. All VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were absurd (not even wrong) - if Einstein had honestly derived them in 1905, his paper would not have been published.
Einstein "solved" the second awful problem by circumventing valid arguments and offering an INVALID one. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion that "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."
Actually 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), being valid consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, entail absurdity (not even wrongness). Einstein hid the absurdity by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" was a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock meant that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years were 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:
Loading Image...
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
"Out of logical necessity" in this case means that Einstein, as he himself admits, plagiarized the principle of the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, 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..."
But there was an awful problem. The constancy of the speed of light as established by the Lorentz equations was (and still is) an obvious nonsense:
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."
In the end Einstein did introduce the nonsense (he had no conscience) by advancing his 1905 false second ("light") postulate, but a new awful problem emerged. All VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were absurd (not even wrong) - if Einstein had honestly derived them in 1905, his paper would not have been published.
Einstein "solved" the second awful problem by circumventing valid arguments and offering an INVALID one. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion that "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."
Actually 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), being valid consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, entail absurdity (not even wrongness). Einstein hid the absurdity by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST. The famous "travel into the future" was a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock meant that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years were 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:
Loading Image...
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
