Discussion:
How Einsteinians Destroy Human Rationality
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-11 12:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."


It is difficult to believe that such idiocy is taught in universities but yes, that is the way Leonard Susskind destroys human rationality. Who devised the idiocy? Einstein of course (Susskind would not teach it otherwise):

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920. VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity

This particular idiocy, implying that Einstein's 1905 second postulate is a consequence of the first, is unacceptable to (relatively) clever Einsteinians. Silly Einsteinians teach it with enthusiasm:


Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html
Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html
Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/
Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html
Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second."

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909081
Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the status of this postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body". As the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same for all inertial observers."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-11 16:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, in its implication that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer (the same for all observers), was (and still is) obviously idiotic:

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

So Einstein had to devise some mythology justifying the introduction of the idiocy. Here is the mythology:

1. The idiocy was a tenet of Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory.

2. The idiocy was confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Brainwashers in Einstein's schizophrenic world know that teaching Einstein's mythology is vitally important:

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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." http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

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." http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, 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." http://cfile205.uf.daum.net/attach/141EBD484EE5A30219CDD4

Do Einsteinians believe the lies and idiocies they teach? For silly Einsteinians - Brian Cox, Leonard Susskind, Brian Greene - the answer is yes (the case of clever Einsteinians is more subtle - they are doublethinkers, that is, believers and non-believers at the same time). Silly Einsteinians are brainwashers but first of all victims of brainwashing - in their early education they were told absurdities, repeatedly, until in the end they became indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:


Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
Dan Christensen
2017-08-11 22:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Leonard Susskind...
How does Pentcho Valev rank on the Crackpot Index? First, some background on him:

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm


What is the Crackpot Index? See:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


Readers can judge for themselves.

Dan
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-11 23:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There is an extremely vulnerable consequence of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. The postulate entails that time SPEEDS UP for the moving observer, or, equivalently, moving clocks run FAST. The moving observer will discover this by checking stationary clocks he meets against his (moving) clocks - stationary clocks are slow, his (moving) clocks are fast.

Einsteinians don't teach this valid consequence (it is obviously too dangerous) and teach instead ... its antithesis, even though the antithesis contradicts special relativity (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we). So, according to Einsteinians and contrary to what special relativity predicts, time SLOWS DOWN for the moving observer and moving clocks run SLOWLY:

http://www.livescience.com/58245-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html
"The implications of Einstein's most famous theory are profound. If the speed of light is always the same, it means that an astronaut going very fast relative to the Earth will measure the seconds ticking by slower than an Earthbound observer will - time essentially slows down for the astronaut, a phenomenon called time dilation."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, 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."

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/five-ways-travel-through-time
"This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world."


Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117878.000-a-special-theory-of-relativity.html
John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..."


Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

Pentcho Valev

Loading...