Corollaries of Einstein's False Principle

[Pentcho]

Unlike thermodynamicists who managed to camouflage inextricably their false fundamental principle (see the two references in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics ), Einstein was not so successful in camouflaging his. He did try indeed in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" but still both the expression "The speed of light is constant, independent of..." and the value 300000 km/s remained popular. It is not difficult to see that the results of the theory of relativity fall into three categories:

 

1. Corollaries of the false principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle). Examples: symmetrical time dilation, symmetrical length contraction. These are all contradictory and can be refuted through reductio ad absurdum:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm

 

2. Corollaries of the true principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light (the c+v principle). Example: the frequency shift factor (1+phi/c^2):

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm

 

3. Corollaries of Einstein's whims. Examples: asymmetrical time contraction (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the clock moving with a constant speed in a closed polygonal line), length dilation (according to a non-rotating observer, the periphery of a rotating disk is LONGER than the periphery of a non-rotating disc):

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm

 

Pentcho Valev

[Sisyphus]

Not only that, but THIS!

[ecoli]

Not only that, but THIS![/url']

 

umm... I hope that site's a joke.

[Tom Mattson]

From the "Incommensurability" paper:

 

One of the most striking claims advanced by T. Kuhn and P. Feyerabend, both classified as non-rationalists among philosophers of science, is that Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian mechanics neither contradict nor agree with one another; they are just incommensurable.

 

OK, since we are quoting authorities without making any justification, how about a quote from an authority who actually works as a scientist? No less an authority than Steven Weinberg said the following regarding Kuhn's claim:

 

... Nor do scientific revolutions necessarily change the way that we assess our theories, making different paradigms incommensurable. Over the past forty years I have been involved in revolutionary changes in the way that physicists understand the elemntary particles that are the basic constituents of matter. The greater revolutions of this century, quantum mechanics and relativity, were before my time, but they are the basis of the physics research of my generation. Nowhere have I seen any signs of Kuhn's incommensurability between different paradigms.

 

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/weinberg.html (color added for emphasis)

 

As for Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics not contradicting each other, that seems easy enough to prove wrong. Consider a particle of mass [imath]M[/imath] which is subjected to a constant acceleration [imath]a[/imath] relative to Earth. Now use both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics to predict the speed of the ship as measured by an observer on Earth at a later time [imath]t[/imath]. You will get two different answers, and they cannot both be correct. Hence, it seems clear that the two theories contradict each other.

 

If the Newtonian says, for instance, "The ball will fall in the hole if its diameter is smaller", no reply by the Einsteinian can be construed as compatible or incompatible; the two persons are merely equivocating.

 

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, or even of how you define "compatible", but it's simple enough to analyze the logic of Newtonian's "if...then" proposition.

 

The Newtonian regards the following two statements as logically atomic:

 

[imath]D:[/imath] The diameter of the ball is smaller than the diameter of the hole.

[imath]F:[/imath] The ball will fall in the hole.

 

From these he forms the compound proposition [imath]D \longrightarrow F[/imath]

 

The Einsteinian does view [imath]F[/imath] as atomic, but not so for [imath]D[/imath]. Rather, he regards [imath]D[/imath] as a compound proposition with infinitely many conjuncts.

 

Explicitly:

 

[imath]D:[/imath] [imath]\bigwedge_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}[/imath]

[imath]D_{\alpha}:[/imath] The diameter of the ball is smaller than the diameter of the hole as determined by an observer in reference frame [imath]\alpha[/imath].

 

Where [imath]\alpha[/imath] is a continuous index that labels all reference frames.

 

Back to compatibility: As I said, I am not sure of what definition you are using. But if by "compatible" you mean that one point of view can be understood in terms of the other, then I say that this can be done. Einstein affirms the differences among the various [imath]D_{\alpha}[/imath] while Newton denies it. Newton says that the [imath]D_{\alpha}[/imath]'s are all the same.

 

On to your next gedanken.

 

There is an even better set-up. A rod is moving with a constant speed in a horizontal tube towards a place where a segment of the tube has been removed. The rod is shorter than the removed segment (when they are in the same inertial frame). Will the rod fall out of the tube when reaching the vacancy?

 

FYI, this exact thought experiment has been worked out relativistically by Rindler in Am. J. Phys. I have the article at home and I will certainly post the complete reference when I find it.

 

For now I will just say that the following contradiction that you "derived" is dead wrong:

 

As for the Einsteinian, he notices that there are two different inertial frames – that of the tube and that of the rod. Part of the Einsteinian’s large soul serves as an observer in the tube’s frame. That part sees a very short rod and wholeheartedly agrees with the Newtonian. Yes, the rod will fall out of the tube.

 

If the speed of the rod is high enough, that second part of the Einsteinian’s soul sees the vacancy in the tube being much shorter than the rod and categorically disagrees with the Newtonian. No, the rod will by no means fall out of the tube.

 

No, this is just a mistake that stems from a misunderstanding of the relativity of simuntaneity. Going back to my logical analysis of [imath]D \longrightarrow F[/imath]: While the Einsteinian denies that [imath]D[/imath] is logically atomic, he affirms that [imath]F[/imath] is logically atomic. If the ball falls in one frame, then it falls in every frame, and the same is true of the rod.

 

As you will see if you read the Rindler article, this is accomodated in relativity by admitting that the rigidity of an object is relative, and as he demonstrates this is a direct consequence of the relativity of simultaneity.

 

Finally:

 

In Newtonian mechanics assertions are straightforward. In Einsteinian mechanics assertions are accompanied by their negations.

 

Not true. As discussed at length above, relativistic assertions regarding measurements of relative quantities must refer to a frame of reference, as I schematized in my indexed statements [imath]D_{\alpha}[/imath] above. No relativistic assertion [imath]D[/imath] is accompanied by [imath]\neg D[/imath]. Rather, every relativistic assertion [imath]D_{\alpha}[/imath] regarding relative quantities is accompanied by [imath]\neg D_{\beta}[/imath], [imath]\beta\neq\alpha[/imath]. Since [imath]D_{\alpha}[/imath] is not necessarily equivalent to [imath]D_{\beta}[/imath] when [imath]\alpha\neq\beta[/imath], this is not a contradiction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Considering this is all that Pentcho posts about, I don't think it's really worth it replying. I haven't seen him reply to any of his own threads yet, and I'm betting his warning level is pretty high already.

[BhavinB]

There's an FAQ website about this guy. Just search his name. He goes and posts the same thing on every newsgroup he can find but as we can see, he rarely replies back.

[bascule]

[img']http://fails.org/pnt.png[/img]

 

I think this guy is right up your alley:

 

http://timecube.com

 

There's an FAQ website about this guy. Just search his name. He goes and posts the same thing on every newsgroup he can find but as we can see, he rarely replies back.

 

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

 

Reading Mr Valev’s postings to the BTK-MCA and other news groups and trying to answer all the nonsense contained in them incurs the risk of being so time-consuming that it takes over one’s professional time completely, leaving none for more profitable activities. On the other hand, not answering them incurs the even greater risk that some readers of the news group may think that his points are unanswerable and that thermodynamics, kinetics, catalysis etc. rest on as fragile a foundation as he pretends. One respondent to a posting I sent on this suggested that the best thing would be to create a FAQ page and refer readers to it whenever Mr Valev repeated any of his usual fallacies. Although in the first instance this is in itself time-consuming it will pay for itself within a month or two (or even within a week or two). Fortunately it is not as difficult as it may appear because despite Mr Valev’s huge number of postings (normally with a different subject line each time) their content is restricted to a fairly small number of fallacies. So any time a new posting appears it is not too difficult to identify which answer is appropriate.

 

I apologize to anyone (other than Mr Valev), who thinks this page is lacking in taste. Believe me, some of us have tried hard to deal calmly and rationally with his continuous outpouring of nonsense, but now there is a higher priority than being polite: ensuring that falsehoods are not accepted as truth.

 

Props to that FAQ author for taking the time to debunk BULLSHIT!

[Tom Mattson]

Considering this is all that Pentcho posts about, I don't think it's really worth it replying. I haven't seen him reply to any of his own threads yet, and I'm betting his warning level is pretty high already.

 

I thought about that very same thing. But until SFN adopts a policy of silencing cranks, and as long as I hold this position, I am going to expose people such as this for what they are, to the best of my ability.

[Mokele]

I thought about that very same thing. But until SFN adopts a policy of silencing cranks, and as long as I hold this position, I am going to expose people such as this for what they are, to the best of my ability.

 

Well, this crank is now silenced (for being a moron), but I do agree with you, and additionally would note that, since AFAIK we don't typically delete crank threads, a good rebuttal will help prevent other users from finding this thread and thinking the poster has a point.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

Well' date=' this crank is now silenced (for being a moron), but I do agree with you, and additionally would note that, since AFAIK we don't typically delete crank threads, a good rebuttal will help prevent other users from finding this thread and thinking the poster has a point.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Yes indeed. The best way to get rid of bullshit isn't to ignore it, or delete it, but expose it as such and let people see the truth...

[Tom Mattson]

FYI' date=' this exact thought experiment has been worked out relativistically by Rindler in Am. J. Phys. I have the article at home and I will certainly post the complete reference when I find it.

[/quote']

 

Here's that reference:

 

W. Rindler, Am. J. Phys., Vol 29, pp 365-366 (1961)

[elas]

... Nor do scientific revolutions necessarily change the way that we assess our theories, making different paradigms incommensurable. Over the past forty years I have been involved in revolutionary changes in the way that physicists understand the elemntary particles that are the basic constituents of matter.

 

Surely the problem is that we do not understand what particles are or why they have their basic constituents - hence the search for the Higgs particle; or am I reading all the wrong books?

It's possible to suggest that all elementary particles are just different states of the same particle simply by assuming that the (vacuum) force acting on the particle radius is the same for all particles. The mass/energy can then be altered simply by altering the radius (condensing or diluting the force carrier). The Higgs will simply be a further condensation providing no improvement whatsoever in our understanding of particles. Although its a great way to waste 21 billion dollars and keep the current leaders in office with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

The graviton is the true elementary particle and 21 billion spent on graviton research would be far more rewarding than searching for the Higgs. Particles get there mass from infinity by condensing the particle of infinity; that is, the weakest vacuum force field whose existence is only possible because the force has a force carrier.

We then realise that a universe made from nothing (or rather, the force of nothing) still consists only of the force of nothing, only the density of the force carrier changes. Waves are caused by variation in force density accross the field (single and composite). Charge is caused by field inversion. Quantum entanglement is the blending of wave and inverted wave (a force carrier wave in a neutral force field). We observe only variations in the force field, hence particles with a neutral force field (photons) cannot be observed other thar by their interaction with other particles. This means that the true mass of neutral particles is not observable hence the large quantity of dark matter.

This of course, is just a speculation; on nothing.