Einstein Abuses Logic and Camouflages Absurdity in 1905

[Pentcho Valev]

View: https://x.com/pentcho_valev/status/1920469585238597722


ME
Ask Perplexity: "Special relativity predicts that a traveler moving at high speed will experience time more slowly than people who remain stationary"
I'm afraid not. It only predicts that the traveler sees stationary clocks running slower than clocks on his spaceship.

ASK PERPLEXITY
Special relativity predicts that a traveler moving at high speed will experience less passage of time compared to those who remain stationary, and this has been confirmed by both experiments and the famous "twin paradox" thought experiment.
While it's true that each observer sees the other's clock running slow during the period of constant velocity, the key asymmetry is that only the traveler changes inertial frames (by turning around and returning), which leads to the traveler genuinely aging less than those who stayed behind-this is not just an illusion, but a real, measurable effect.
Experiments with fast-moving particles and precise atomic clocks have repeatedly verified that time dilation is a physical reality, not just a matter of perception.

ME
In 1905 Einstein derived "traveler genuinely aging less" (rather, moving clock running slower) without any changing-inertial-frames assumption (see quotation).
Time dilation is nothing more than an absurdity ably camouflaged by a system of misleading or fraudulent statements.
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/

ASK PERPLEXITY
Einstein's 1905 paper does indeed derive time dilation for moving clocks without requiring a change in inertial frames, showing mathematically that a moving clock runs slower compared to a stationary one in the reference frame of the observer-this is a direct consequence of special relativity, not an absurdity.
This prediction has been confirmed by numerous experiments, such as accelerating ions to high speeds and comparing their "clocks" to stationary ones, consistently verifying that moving clocks tick slower, exactly as Einstein described.
The "twin paradox" arises when both observers see the other's clock as running slow during constant motion, but the asymmetry-where only the traveling twin turns around and changes frames-explains why the traveler genuinely ages less upon reunion, and this has been experimentally validated.

ME
Special relativity predicts that moving clock runs slower AS JUDGED FROM THE STATIONARY FRAME, but in Einstein's 1905 paper it runs slower absolutely. That is, both observers, stationary and moving, see moving clock showing less time elapsed at the end of the journey. Fraud, no?

ASK PERPLEXITY
The passage from Einstein's 1905 paper (shown in your image) explains that, according to special relativity, a moving clock runs slower compared to a stationary one-but this effect is always relative to the chosen frame of reference, not "absolute" in the sense that both observers would agree on which clock ran slower.
In reality, each observer sees the other's moving clock as ticking slower during uniform motion, but when the two clocks are brought back together (as in the "twin paradox"), only the clock that underwent acceleration and changed frames (the traveler) will show less elapsed time-this is a real, experimentally confirmed effect, not fraud or contradiction.

ME
Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail that, when moving clock arrives at B and joins stationary clock, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's frame.
This prediction is a blatant absurdity but Einstein successfully camouflaged it in 1905.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Brian Greene teaches ASYMMETRIC time dilation: The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast:

View: https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157


Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The postulates, true or false, entail SYMMETRIC time dilation: Either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's frame.

Einstein devised the asymmetric-time-dilation hoax in 1905:

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/

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail symmetric, not asymmetric, time dilation. So if Einstein had obeyed logic and performed a valid deduction, his conclusion would have been as follows:

On its arrival at B the clock moved from A to B lags behind the stationary clock, as judged from the stationary clock's frame. As judged from the moving clock's frame, however, on its arrival at B, the clock moved from A to B is AHEAD of the stationary clock.

This conclusion is logically valid but it is an obvious absurdity. If Einstein had not abused logic in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish the 1905 paper.

 

[Helio]

The basis to SR is simply that the speed of light can only be observed to have one and only one speed, regardless of this or that motion of the source of that light.

The equation for SR is very easy to derive. The common analogy is that If one is standing, say, on a flat bed of a moving train, then takes the measurement of the distance traveled by light from a flashlight to the deck, using the value of c (speed of light). Then an observer standing on the ground takes that same measurement of the distance the light traveled, now at an angle to allow for the speed of the train, then a problem occurs. The light will not be traveling faster as seen by the ground observer, so the math will reveal that the difference is found by assuming the time runs slower for the traveler. But this is true for both parties, the one on the ground is seen to be moving relative to the one on the train.

The effects as described by SR has been tested, as you stated in your OP, over and over. We don't get to dictate to Mother Nature how to behave. We're lucky we can measure some of what she does.