Albert Einstein Lying Blatantly

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein informs the gullible world that the inertial clock at the center of the rotating disk runs faster than the non-inertial clock on the edge of the disk, and that this is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation:

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K." http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

Einstein refers to Section XII

XII. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion - Collection at Bartleby.com

XII. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion I PLACE a metre-rod in the x'-axis of k' in such a manner that one end (the beginning) coincides with the point x' = 0, whilst the other end (the end of

www.bartleby.com

but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the center of the rotating disk should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock on the edge of the disk. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts SYMMETRIC time dilation for two inertial clocks: either clock runs slower than the other by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), as judged from the other clock's system.

 

[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 is Einstein's first blatant lie. No such "peculiar consequence" follows from his 1905 postulates (the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light). Valid deduction from the postulates would have produced the following idiotic per se but correctly deduced "peculiar consequence":

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, as judged from the stationary system, and the clock which has remained at B lags behind the other moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein informs the gullible world that the speed of light is constant, c, because, if it is variable, w=c-v, then "this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity":

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

Believing that w=c-v "comes into conflict with the principle of relativity" is equivalent to believing that 2+2=5:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

 

[Atlan0001]

The speed of light is constant 'c' as it is emitted at all points of emission. The speed of light is constant 'c' as it is received at all points of reception. At any point and all points between, if measured locally at whatever, wherever, the point of a then reception / new emission, it will measure 'c'.

If someone claims they measured the space between A and C and the speed of light does not agree, regarding the space that someone measured between A and C, with what the speed of light should be for the space between, and, therefore, what it should be regarding traveler B -- should have been for traveler B, therefore, that person claims, the speed of light has to be the culprit and cannot be constant regardless of the agreements of the measures at all local points of measuring to be speed of light 'c'. by traveler B and even a super=observer in superposition D who is quantum entangled-like with all the observers and their clocks, A, B, and C and everywhere else.

What is the solution to the puzzle, the confusion?

The solution is that the space, the expandable / contractible (the inflationary / deflationary) warp-bubble of the space, is not a fixed constant, never exactly the same measurement for any two or more times, for all observers and traveling observers. Therefore, the time measurement attached to the warp-bubble flexing and varying of the space measurement, thus even the gravity measurement never being exactly the same measurement of it twice, for each and all of what then is each observer being essentially independent of all other observers trying to observe the same events. And each and all of them measuring the same constant 'c' for all light emitting and receiving at all local-relative sites of observation, won't be anything like an exacting measure or agreement since no measure of space can or will ever be exactly, exactly(!), the same measure twice. Neither will the measure of gravity ever be exactly, exactly(!), the same measure twice. And that is just concerning measurements locally relative.