Ripping Apart Einstein

Einstein's Relativity : Lies Are Getting Subtler

In order to justify the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, Einsteinians used to teach the following two blatant lies:

1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer.)

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the speed of light DOES DEPEND on the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.)

Examples:

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you will see. Even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less. Although at first it sounds completely ridiculous, unlike what happens if one runs from an oncoming baseball, grenade, or avalanche, the speed of approaching photons is always 670 million miles per hour. The same is true if you run toward oncoming photons or chase after them - their speed of approach or recession is completely unchanged; they still appear to travel at 670 million miles per hour. Regardless of relative motion between the source of photons and the observer, the speed of light is always the same."

In Brian Greene's new online special relativity course the lies are much subtler: Maxwell's equations just did not specify what the speed of light was relative to and physicists "made up" an answer: relative to the ether. But experiments showed there was no ether, and that was where the genius of Einstein came into the story, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah.

Pentcho Valev

Lubos Motl, Brian Greene's brother in faith, is commenting on the new project in a suspiciously sarcastic tone:

"World Science U: Brian Greene's online learning"

What's happened? Why is Lubos Motl so disrespectful? He is not Einsteinian any more:

Lubos Motl: "...Albert Einstein's 1918 speech celebrating Max Planck's 60th birthday... (...) Einstein divided the temple of science to profit-seekers (or utilitarians) and ego-builders (or athletes) on one side and monks (or missionaries) on the other side. Max Planck was included into the rare latter category by Einstein. Despite Einstein's stellar moral credentials in the public, I actually find it plausible today that Einstein himself might have been a representative of the former category as the Einstein and Eddington movie suggested. He might have been an utilitarian, not a monk (which I used to believe to be an accurate label for Einstein 25 years ago)."

Einsteinians leaving the sinking ship.

Pentcho Valev

Absurdities in Einstein's 1905 Article

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 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. It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Let us pay special attention to this:

"...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..."

Why? Time dilation is mutual isn't it? If I say that, according to special relativity, the clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, where am I wrong?

I wouldn't be wrong of course. Special relativity is an inconsistency that makes contradictory predictions. But there is a subtlety that allows Einstein to camouflage the contradiction: the retardation of a clock can only be calculated if that clock finds itself consecutively at different points belonging to the other clock's system. In Einstein's scenario, the moving clock finds itself consecutively at point A and point B (points belonging to the stationary clock's system), and Einstein gloriously calculates that it lags behind by tv^2/2c^2.

And since in Einstein's scenario the stationary clock does not find itself consecutively at different points belonging to the moving clock's system, its retardation cannot be calculated. Einstein's implicit suggestion is: "If the retardation of the stationary clock cannot be calculated, forget about it!" Einsteinians have been strictly following this suggestion for more than a century.

Let there be a large number of clocks moving in the closed polygonal line, one a short distance after the other. The single stationary clock (at B) is placed at the middle of one of the sides of the polygon and its reading is compared with the readings of the moving clocks which pass it at short intervals.

In this scenario the stationary clock does find itself consecutively at different points belonging to the moving clock's system and its retardation CAN be calculated. For instance, if both the stationary clock and a moving clock read zero as they meet, and if the next moving clock reads 5 as it reaches the stationary clock, and if the two moving clocks are synchronized, the stationary clock will read, say, 4 as it meets the second moving clock.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency making contradictory predictions.

Pentcho Valev

Absurdities in Einstein's 1905 Article II

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

In terms of the twin paradox, the scenario offered by Einstein in his 1905 article can be described in the following way. As the travelling twin moves in a closed polygonal line, his clock can be checked against two or more clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's system, and this allows Einstein to calculate that the travelling twin returns younger than the sedentary twin. In contrast, the scenario prevents the sedentary twin's clock from being checked against two or more travelling clocks, and Einstein can safely say anything about the age of the sedentary twin (he found it profitable to say that the sedentary twin proves older at the end of the travelling twin's journey).

Let us consider a large number of travelling twins (ants) move in a rectangular line, one a short distance after the other. We can imagine a single sedentary twin (ant) placed at the middle of one of the sides of the rectancle, his clock being constantly checked against the travelling twins' clocks which pass it at short intervals. In this case special relativity calculates that the sedentary twin's clock runs slower, and accordingly that the sedentary twin remains younger. Conclusion: Special relativity is an inconsistency.

The above picture reveals another contradiction in special relativity. The theory predicts that, as the speed of the travelling twins (ants) increases, their length and the distance between them decrease (as judged from the sedentary twin's system). Accordingly, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the sedentary twin's system, the number of travelling twins (ants) on the whole rectangular line must increase (as judged from the sedentary twin's system). Needless to say, this last implication is absurd.

Pentcho Valev

The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

The video shows a light source and an (initially) stationary observer measuring the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the wavecrests.

When the observer starts moving with speed v away from the light source, the videowatcher clearly sees that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c-v, and that this causes the frequency the observer measures to shift from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d=f(1-v/c).

Yet Dr. Ricardo Eusebi explains to the videowatcher that the picture is partly illusory. The frequency shift the videowatcher sees (from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d) is true, but the cause, the shift in the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer (from c to c'=c-v) is not real. The videowatcher may see it but it is not there. If the source emitted sound waves, then - OK - the frequency would shift from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d, and the cause would be none other than the shift in the speed of the waves relative to the observer, from c to c'=c-v. For light waves, however, the effect, the frequency shift, still exists, but the cause, the shift in the speed of the waves relative to the observer, is absent, or at least some other cause must have produced exactly the same effect.

Needless to say, not all scientists suffer from the above schizophrenia. Many admit, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of the light waves relative to the observer does vary with the speed of the observer:

Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Tony Harker: "In a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t."

Consequence: The speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:

c' = distance/time = (c - Vo)t/t = c - Vo,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity II

Richard Baxter 1667: "Whereupon it is that the Schoolmen have questioned how many Angels may fit upon the point of a Needle?"

21st century schoolmen ask a slightly different question:

"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

Schoolmen see no problem in trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers but still one point needs refinement: some schoolmen believe that the long object is trapped in a compressed state inside the short container, others claim there is no compression at all:

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

Pentcho Valev

The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity III

Let us imagine that the ants moving along the rectangular line are light clocks travelling at 87% the speed of light. According to the principle of relativity, a single stationary clock placed in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle can be regarded as "moving" between "stationary" clocks scattered along the side; according to the principle of constancy of the speed of light, the single "moving" clock ticks half as fast as the "stationary" clocks (note that this conclusion does not depend on whether the "stationary" clocks are synchronous or not):

"How can I find out what the moving clock reads an hour from now when it is no longer anywhere near me? Here's one procedure: I set up many clocks at rest with respect to me throughout space. Then, one hour later, as the moving clock passes one of those clocks, a friend notes what the moving clock reads and what the local resting clock reads. From my friend's report, I can figure out whether the moving clock has slowed or not. The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out through space. The moving clock agrees with the reading of the leftmost clock--my wristwatch--as it passes by. However when it passes the rightmost, it now reads much less. So I judge it to have slowed."

"If you watch the animation carefully, you will see that the moving light clock ticks at exactly half the speed of the resting clock. That is because the light signal of the moving clock has to cover twice the distance to go from one end of the rod to the other."

So in this scenario special relativity predicts that the single stationary clock placed in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle is slower than clocks moving along the polygonal line. In Einstein's original 1905 scenario, clocks moving along the polygonal line are slower. We have reductio ad absurdum which means that the principle of constancy of the speed of light is false.

Pentcho Valev

The Amazing Vulnerability of Einstein's Relativity IV

Originally "length contraction" was discussed in terms of deformation of rigid bodies in motion resulting from possible effects of the motion on intermolecular forces:

"Both FitzGerald and Lorentz were clearly aware that the deformation hypothesis required some degree of theoretical underpinning if it were not to be dismissed as blatant trickery, or at least entirely ad hoc. Independently, they appealed to the possible effects of motion (relative to the ether) on the forces holding the molecules of rigid bodies in equilibrium, in analogy with the corresponding effect on 'electric' forces."

In Einstein's special relativity "bodies" are not the only ones that contract; distances between them contract as well. I am going to show that this leads to blatant absurdities.

Let us imagine that the ants scattered on the rectangular line are initially at rest but then start travelling along the line at 87% the speed of light. According to special relativity, lengths of travelling ants and distances between them decrease twice (as judged from the system at rest). Therefore, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the system at rest, the number of travelling ants on the whole rectangular line must be twice as great as that of ants at rest. Needless to say, this last implication is absurd. The postulates of special relativity cannot be both true.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians : Children of the Universe

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Most people get a general feeling of uneasiness when they first realize that the block universe implies all the past and all the future is equally real as the present moment, that even though we experience the present moment as special, it is only subjectively so. But if you can combat your uneasiness for long enough, you might come to see the beauty in eternal mathematical truths that transcend the passage of time. We always have been, and always will be, children of the universe."

The children of the universe know that the future already exists - they can jump, within a minute, sixty million years ahead and see what will happen then on Earth:

Thibault Damour: "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")."

Jumping in the future is possible because, on the planet on which the children of the universe live, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate is true. If Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate were false, the children of the universe would jump again but just up and down, not in the future.

Pentcho Valev

Children of the universe's confessions:

Lubos Motl: "...Albert Einstein's 1918 speech celebrating Max Planck's 60th birthday... (...) Einstein divided the temple of science to profit-seekers (or utilitarians) and ego-builders (or athletes) on one side and monks (or missionaries) on the other side. Max Planck was included into the rare latter category by Einstein. Despite Einstein's stellar moral credentials in the public, I actually find it plausible today that Einstein himself might have been a representative of the former category as the Einstein and Eddington movie suggested. He might have been an utilitarian, not a monk (which I used to believe to be an accurate label for Einstein 25 years ago)."

John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science."

What If Einstein Was Wrong? Brian Clegg, Jim Al-Khalili: "It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Einstein could get it wrong, because science is not about absolute truth..."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, 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..."

Philip Ball: "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 Smolin."

"...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."

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

"If there's one thing Einstein taught us, it's that time is relative. But physicist Petr Horava is challenging this notion..."

Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

If you know where Julian Barbour is, please ask him:

- What is an instant?

- Does it have a number of seconds or is it of zero duration?

- Can any activity occur during the duration of an instant?

- If nothing can happen during the instant, how can the 'the positions

of objects relative to each other in one instant affect the position of objects in the next instant?

And if you know the answers, you can tell us.

Thanks for linking Julian's lecture.

Akinbo

The children of the universe are leaving the sinking ship because they now know that Einstein's 1954 forewarning was justified:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

There had been a similar hint as early as in 1909:

Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories."

Clearly, if the field concept is fatal for physics, as Einstein suggests in 1954, the only reasonable alternative is Newton's emission theory of light stating that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the emitter:

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, 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."

Pentcho Valev

The only reason the laws of physics even work is because they are imprinted upon spirit. Same with the physics constants.

Pentcho,

Einstein's relativity goes back to H. Poincaré's understanding of relativity.

Poincaré called the "impossibility of demonstrating an experimental evidence for the absolute motion of the Earth" a general law of nature: "the Postulate of Relativity".

Some authors argue that Einstein's SR could be better characterized as theory of invariance which goes back to a guess by Lorentz.

What about the experiments by Michelson 1881 without and 1887 with Morley, they did contradict to the assumed by Maxwell aether wind relative to Earth but not to Maxwell's relation c^2=1/(my_0 eps_0) with my_0 and eps_0 constant.

I am not aware of an emission theory that describes how the mass of a particle depends on its velocity of motion in space as actually measured.

May I ask you to comment on the opinion of Kuratowski's Ghost?

Eckard

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

The statement:

" Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO "

is fatal for special relativity. Einsteinians prefer the antithesis:

" Relative to you, the waves travel at the same speed: v'=v "

The problem is that the frequency shift, f'=(v+vO)/(lambda), cannot be derived from the antithesis, v'=v. Clearly the antithesis is false and Redner's statement:

" Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO "

is true. Special relativity is wrong.

Pentcho Valev

On the "impossibility of demonstrating an experimental evidence for the absolute motion of the Earth"

What do you make of the 380km/s absolute motion of the earth relative to the otherwise smooth cosmic microwave background as evidenced by a Doppler blueshift and a redshift in the direction of the Leo constellation?

First this contradicts the Poincaré's assertion you mentioned. Second it also contradicts the SR postulate that "the motion of the earth cannot be detected from electromagnetic phenomena".

What is Kuratowski's Ghost?

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 10:08 GMT

"If you know where Julian Barbour is, please ask him:

- What is an instant?

- Does it have a number of seconds or is it of zero duration?

- Can any activity occur during the duration of an instant?

- If nothing can happen during the instant, how can the 'the positions of objects relative to each other in one instant affect the position of objects in the next instant?

And if you know the answers, you can tell us."

These questions, of course, are at the root of Zeno's paradox. How can anything move in the infinitely divisible void of space if time consists of infinitely divisible instants of frozen action?

However, there actually is no meaning to the idea of a frozen instant of time. Objects undergo continuous matter exchange with other matter objects throughout time and so there is no frozen moment of time.

Our minds use a convenient fiction that there is an absolute universe of objects that are somehow frozen in time and space and that infinitesimal forces and impulses come along that then result in changes in those objects. This intuition of action serves us very well for most predictions of action, especially gravity action of macroscopic objects.

However, the reality is that all objects in the universe are always in fundamental matter exchanges with all other objects and those matter exchanges define what we call moments differently for each object as action.

We can of course imagine a frozen moment of time because that is how our minds imagine objects in Cartesian space. How long is the human moment of thought?However, this projection of objects into space is just a convenient way for our minds to organize the object changes the complexity of sensation and therefore to help us predict object actions. The reality of object existence and action involves continuous exchange of matter as moments with other objects. This continuous change is what defines both objects that we imagine are and are not changing in time.

So time alone does not define action, it takes the integration of matter over time together to define action. Likewise action alone does not define time, it takes both action and matter moments to define time as a ratio. It is the three axioms of matter, time, and action that define a universe where any two axioms necessarily define the third.

There is a universal time defined by the fundamental action of the universe as an object, but we use a definition of time defined by the action of objects that we call clocks, either an atomic clock or some other convenient object, and just presume that that time is the same time as universe time.

Why Einstein Proposed His Second Postulate

Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

Logical necessity? Yes. Einstein needed the false constancy of the speed of light as a premise in order to procrusteanize time and become famous:

John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

Pentcho Valev

It amounts to rewriting history for authors to claim that, "at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity". Such distortions of history, thanks to the information age and the internet must no longer be tolerated in science. When lies are repeated constantly they tend to take on the semblance of truth. Einstein's 1905 paper is now available for all to read. In that paper, he said, "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium". Those unsuccessful attempts were the experiments of Michelson and Morley carried out before 1905.

Akinbo