The Non Sequitur That Keeps Einstein's Relativity Alive

Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail the following conclusion:

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

Here is an obvious corollary of (A) which also validly follows from the postulates:

(A') If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SPEEDS UP.

The conclusion (A) is validly deducible from the postulates but is preposterous. It implies that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move relative to one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. So if Einstein had explicitly stated the validly deducible conclusion (A) in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.

Instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the following non sequitur (not following from Einstein's 1905 postulates):

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

Here is an obvious corollary of (B) which is also non sequitur (does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates):

(B') Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SLOWS DOWN."
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE


Here is the original fraudulent text where, instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the non sequitur (B):

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/

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 (more precisely, idiocy) 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

Einsteinians (including Einstein himself) diligently teach the non sequiturs (B) and (B') and persistently avoid the lethal for relativity valid deductions (A) and (A'):

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion..." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368

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://scienceinschool.org/2009/issue11/timetravel

Don Lincoln: "One of the claims of special relativity is that time passes more slowly for moving observers than stationary ones."
View: https://youtu.be/vnGWDYfweTI?t=39
 
Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail the following conclusion:

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

Here is an obvious corollary of (A) which also validly follows from the postulates:

(A') If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SPEEDS UP.

The conclusion (A) is validly deducible from the postulates but is preposterous. It implies that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move relative to one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. So if Einstein had explicitly stated the validly deducible conclusion (A) in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.

Instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the following non sequitur (not following from Einstein's 1905 postulates):

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

Here is an obvious corollary of (B) which is also non sequitur (does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates):

(B') Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SLOWS DOWN."
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE


Here is the original fraudulent text where, instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the non sequitur (B):

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/

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 (more precisely, idiocy) 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

Einsteinians (including Einstein himself) diligently teach the non sequiturs (B) and (B') and persistently avoid the lethal for relativity valid deductions (A) and (A'):

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion..." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368

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://scienceinschool.org/2009/issue11/timetravel

Don Lincoln: "One of the claims of special relativity is that time passes more slowly for moving observers than stationary ones."
View: https://youtu.be/vnGWDYfweTI?t=39
Either you are dealing in observation brought to you by light at the speed of light, or any detection via the speed of light, or you are dealing in real time instantaneity when it comes to observation . . . instantaneous observations at a distance, quantum entanglement of observer or detector and whatever is under observation -- including clocks -- at any distance whatsoever, as I see all of the above are obviously doing (dealing in instantaneity [as being the speed of light!] ). No time passing or passed existing between observer or detector and whatever (including clocks) is under observation or being detected before observation or detection. Which is it?

There is no real time objectivity involved to anything, any statement, above. There can't be since real time objectivity can't be observed or detected at any distance apart whatsoever. Only relative time subjective histories exist at every loose end without any exception . . . with claims above that they (the observed thing, the detected thing) be the singularly real time one and only (thus time to observation or detection being instantaneously fast, timeless, faster than infinitely fast, between). Where is the difference between observation or detection time at the [slow] speed of light at any distance and what they claim is an entangled, an entangling, state of real time? Nowhere! I see no difference, above, whatsoever.

There is a development of curvature to space-time between moving objects or between a preferred, so-called "stationary" object, and a moving object relative to the preferred stationary. The greater the relative velocity difference, the greater the curvature development, the greater the distance light must travel via the curvature. Only a traveler can cut the curve and end up closer (if oncoming), or farther away (if going away), than the observer observed or observes it to be. 0-point positioning could be termed super-positioning, future positioning as far as any observer or detector is concerned. It certainly isn't the past position, the history, the people above deal in as the present position. Super-positioning, future positioning, means a real time clock is advanced / advancing in time over the time the observed clock will tell, the observed clock falling behind aka slowing.
-----------------

General George Patton is said to have said: "Brevity may be the soul of wit, but repetition is the heart of instruction."
 
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back...For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

This "enough strangeness" sounds idiotic, doesn't it? And it IS idiotic, judging from Einstein's 1918 explanation:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

That is, as the traveling twin turns around (but considers himself to be at rest), he finds that a homogeneous gravitational field appears and in this homogeneous gravitational field his brother accelerates towards him and reaches speed v. Then the field disappears.

Why is the gravitational field "homogeneous"? Because otherwise it would not go up to the very distant brother and would not cause his acceleration.

The way Einstein brainwashes the world in 1918 is too blatant, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. David Morin feels some shame (perhaps) and uses the enigmatic euphemism "enough strangeness". Other Einsteinians have made their lives much easier, persistently ignore Einstein's 1918 idiocy and teach the 1905 non sequitur that solves all twin-paradox problems. The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast, and that's it:

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

Latest posts