Unique Brainwashing in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

[Pentcho Valev]

Don Lincoln: "Einstein’s theory of special relativity predicts some crazy phenomena, none more nonintuitive than the idea that moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones. As clocks approach the speed of light, they tick ever more slowly, getting closer and closer to not ticking at all. So, this raises an interesting question: Since fast-moving objects experience time more slowly and the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit, does light “experience” time? On online physics chat forums, many answers are given. But what is the truth?" https://bigthink.com/hard-science/photons-light-time/

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.

Or, equivalently:

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

The conclusion (A) is obviously absurd. It says that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move towards one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. Still, absurd as it is, (A), together with (A'), is a VALID DEDUCTION of Einstein's 1905 postulates.

Clearly, neither (A) nor (A') implies that "moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones". So Don Lincoln has replaced the valid deduction, (A) and (A'), with a non sequitur, "moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones", and invites the reader to ponder the implications of the non sequitur.

Pondering the implications of the valid deduction leaves little chance to human rationality - it gets destroyed. But pondering the implications of the non sequitur leaves no chance to human rationality - it gets irreversibly destroyed.

 

[MantleMan]

Don Lincoln: "Einstein’s theory of special relativity predicts some crazy phenomena, none more nonintuitive than the idea that moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones. As clocks approach the speed of light, they tick ever more slowly, getting closer and closer to not ticking at all. So, this raises an interesting question: Since fast-moving objects experience time more slowly and the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit, does light “experience” time? On online physics chat forums, many answers are given. But what is the truth?" https://bigthink.com/hard-science/photons-light-time/

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.

Or, equivalently:

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

The conclusion (A) is obviously absurd. It says that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move towards one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. Still, absurd as it is, (A), together with (A'), is a VALID DEDUCTION of Einstein's 1905 postulates.

Clearly, neither (A) nor (A') implies that "moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones". So Don Lincoln has replaced the valid deduction, (A) and (A'), with a non sequitur, "moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones", and invites the reader to ponder the implications of the non sequitur.

Pondering the implications of the valid deduction leaves little chance to human rationality - it gets destroyed. But pondering the implications of the non sequitur leaves no chance to human rationality - it gets irreversibly destroyed.

Nikola Tesla labeled The theory of Relativity as BS

 

[Pentcho Valev]

LIGO fakers test if the physics community is fully brainwashed or needs additional brainwashing:

LIGO fakers: "The fact that the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves is simply because they both travel at the speed of information." https://discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

"Speed of information" is undefined nonsense but theoretical physicists agree with LIGO fakers (no protesting comments). Conclusion: The physics community is fully brainwashed and does not need additional brainwashing.

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...THE TRIUMPH OF RELATIVITY THEORY REPRESENTS THE TRIUMPH OF IDEOLOGY not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Early brainwashing in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

In 1911 Jean Perrin explains that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the VARIABLE speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory; Paul Langevin agrees reluctantly:

Séance du 19 Octobre 1911, LE TEMPS, L'ESPACE ET LA CAUSALITÉ DANS LA PHYSIQUE MODERNE https://s3.archive-host.com/membres...ConfPhiloSciences/philosc12_langevin_1911.pdf

M. PERRIN. - Il est remarquable qu'un retour à l'hypothèse de l'émission, en admettant que les particules lumineuses sont émises par chaque source avec une même vitesse par rapport à elle dans toutes les directions expliquerait, dans les conceptions de la Mécanique classique, le résultat négatif de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley quel que soit le mouvement d'ensemble du système. D'autre part les physiciens, en développant la théorie des ondulations au point de vue du principe de relativité, sont amenés à conclure que la lumière est inerte et probablement pesante. N'est-ce pas un retour vers l'ancienne théorie de l'émission ?

M. LANGEVIN. - Tout d'abord la théorie de l'émission sous sa forme ancienne compatible avec la mécanique s'est montrée impuissante à expliquer les phénomènes les plus simples de l'optique en particulier la réfraction et les interférences utilisées dans l'expérience même de Michelson et Morley. Elle a dû être abandonnée depuis l'expérience cruciale de Foucault sur la vitesse de la lumière dans les milieux réfringents. S'il est vrai que par un singulier retour le principe de relativité conduise à reconnaître à la lumière des propriétés analogues à l'inertie et même à la pesanteur, une théorie de l'émission qui représenterait ces faits devrait être singulièrement différente de la théorie ancienne et devrait, pour tenir compte de la nature commune des phénomènes optiques et électromagnétiques expliquer aussi ces derniers phénomènes; et comme ceux-ci paraissent exactement régis par les équations des Maxwell, la nouvelle théorie devrait correspondre à l'espace et au temps dont les transformations conservent leur forme à ces équations, c'est-à-dire à l'espace et au temps du groupe de Lorentz. Il est d'ailleurs bien difficile de discuter une théorie non encore formulée.

In 1922 Paul Langevin explains that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's CONSTANT speed of light; Jean Perrin wholeheartedly agrees:

Séance du 6 avril 1922, LA THÉORIE DE LA RELATIVITÉ https://s3.archive-host.com/membres...ConfPhiloSciences/philosc13_einstein_1922.pdf

M. LANGEVIN. - La théorie de la Relativité restreinte repose sur deux axiomes fondamentaux : le principe de relativité et le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière. Selon le premier principe, les équations traduisant les lois qui régissent les phénomènes doivent avoir la même forme pour tous les systèmes d'inertie en translation uniforme les uns par rapport aux autres ; ce principe fondé sur l'expérience s'est toujours trouvé confirmé dans tous les domaines de la physique. L'isotropie de la vitesse de la lumière, autrement dit la constance de c quand on passe d'un système galiléen à un autre, est une conséquence de ces lois de l'électromagnétisme que personne ne peut raisonnablement songer à contester, et se trouve directement vérifiée par des expériences du genre de celle de Michelson.

M. PERRIN. - Je m'associe entièrement aux vues de M. Langevin et pense que la théorie a la plus grosse importance dans tous les domaines de la physique.