# Einstein's Preposterous Concept of Time

#### Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail the following conclusion:

(A) If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

The conclusion is absurd. It implies that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized but then move relative to one another, in an encounter between them either clock will find the other lagging behind. So if Einstein had stated the conclusion explicitly in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.

It took Einstein more than a decade to find good ways to camouflage the absurdity. In 1905, however, he was still ideologically inexperienced and resorted to a blatant lie. Instead of the valid deduction (A), he implicitly advanced the following non sequitur:

(B) If two clocks are in relative motion, the moving one is slow and the stationary one is fast.

Here is the fraudulent text:

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/

If Einstein had obeyed logic and had performed a valid deduction, the text would have been equivalent to this:

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

It is easy to see that the valid deduction, (A), doesn't, but the non sequitur, (B), does predict TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle that converted Einstein into a deity:

"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")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

#### Pentcho Valev

Albert Einstein: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368

Is this true? No. Is it a valid deduction from special relativity's postulates? No again. Here is the valid deduction:

The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, as judged from the stationary system, but it runs FASTER as judged from the moving system.

So Einstein's statement, "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion", is non sequitur in special relativity but since the founder of the church has produced it, apostles teach it diligently:

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

Richard Feynman: "Now if all moving clocks run slower, if no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate, we shall just have to say, in a certain sense, that time itself appears to be slower in a space ship." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "...Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion." http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...y-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481

Jim Al-Khalili: "Einstein showed that for anything (or anyone) travelling at speeds approaching that of light...time literally runs more slowly." https://www.scienceinschool.org/article/2009/timetravel/

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Pentcho Valev

"The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." http://hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/

So one is false but the falsehood cannot be removed from modern physics - it can only be reconciled with the truth (in Big Brother's world scientists reconcile 2+2=5 and 2+2=4):

Natalie Wolchover: "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www2.perimeterinstitute.ca/...discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum

#### Pentcho Valev

High priests in the Einstein Cult know that Einstein's concept of time is preposterous and often inform the brainwashed public about that (so they become sensational, famous, their books become bestsellers, etc):

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, [Lee] Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe-ebook/dp/B009JWCQMK

Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/its-likely-times-are-changing

"Was Einstein wrong? Do we have to kill off the theory of space and time to make sense of the universe?" https://space.com/end-of-einstein-space-time

"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time...Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another..." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced."
View: https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

#### mikeash

Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail the following conclusion:

(A) If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

The conclusion is absurd. It implies that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized but then move relative to one another, in an encounter between them either clock will find the other lagging behind. So if Einstein had stated the conclusion explicitly in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.

It took Einstein more than a decade to find good ways to camouflage the absurdity. In 1905, however, he was still ideologically inexperienced and resorted to a blatant lie. Instead of the valid deduction (A), he implicitly advanced the following non sequitur:

(B) If two clocks are in relative motion, the moving one is slow and the stationary one is fast.

Here is the fraudulent text:

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/

If Einstein had obeyed logic and had performed a valid deduction, the text would have been equivalent to this:

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

It is easy to see that the valid deduction, (A), doesn't, but the non sequitur, (B), does predict TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle that converted Einstein into a deity:

"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")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
At relativistic speed does the universe appear the same as to the stationary observer? Yes it does ! As the speed of light is observed to be the same in any frame of reference. This to me is weird. Would red shifts be observed the same?

#### Pentcho Valev

At relativistic speed does the universe appear the same as to the stationary observer? Yes it does ! As the speed of light is observed to be the same in any frame of reference. This to me is weird. Would red shifts be observed the same?
Einstein's proposition that the speed of light is the same in any frame of reference (independent of the speed of the observer) is pure nonsense, equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5. Einstein wrestled with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before positing it:

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." https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

#### mikeash

I am not going to read that thing you posted. It was written by a non scientist/physicist. My comment refers to time itself. If the earth observer sees the universe and is a faster aging person than the relativistic one, then... WHATS HAPPENING MAN. As the speeding one approaches light speed, what is the universe doing?

#### Pentcho Valev

"Einstein threw all that out. Starting with the fact that the speed of light never changes regardless of who is observing it and how fast they are moving when they experience it, the wild-haired brainiac knew something had to give. The universal clock flew out the window. Time is relative, and our experience of time depends on not only how fast or slow we are moving through space but even how high we are up." https://gerald-baron.medium.com/time-may-be-the-most-confounding-subject-in-science-645d8e0aeb09

Einstein didn't start with a "fact". Rather, he started with a tenet of the theory of the nonexistent luminiferous ether, knowing that the Michelson-Morley experiment had unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light:

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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Last edited:

Replies
3
Views
903
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
895