Discussion:
The Silliest Einsteinians
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-18 09:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
One of the most idiotic arguments Einstein ever advanced is as follows:

Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every reference frame (Einstein's 1905 first postulate, the principle of relativity).

Premise 2: Einstein's 1905 second postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is a law of physics.

Conclusion: Einstein's 1905 second postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is a consequence of the first, the principle of relativity.

Needless to say, Einstein did not believe that his second postulate is a consequence of the first - it takes imbecility to believe such nonsense. The argument was meant to provide his silliest sycophants with some clue about the fundamentals of relativity - otherwise the creatures may feel insecure and frustrated. Here are examples of such creatures (some of them don't look so silly and may be just dishonest, not imbeciles - like Einstein):


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://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..."

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."


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."

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
Dan Christensen
2017-06-18 13:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
One of the most idiotic...
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
2017-06-18 20:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You never know whether an Einsteinian is extremely silly or extremely dishonest (or both). It is common knowledge that, in 1919, Eddington was trying to find out which deflection - that predicted by Newton's theory or that predicted by Einstein's theory - was the true one, but Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory had predicted no deflection:

http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity."

Brothers Einsteinians don't rebuke Kip Thorne - they admire his breathtaking stupidity/dishonesty and will give him the Nobel prize this year.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-19 08:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Normally Einsteinians are doublethinkers and teach both thesis and antithesis. So the turning-around acceleration is both crucially important and immaterial in dealing with Einstein's twin paradox:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, 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. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

However Steven Jonathan Carlip, professor of physics at the University of California Davis, finds doublethink unsatisfactory and practices triple-, quadruple- and even quintuplethink. A synopsis of his teaching: The speed of light is constant by definition. Einstein said the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field - an interpretation which is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense - but after Einstein the speed of light in a gravitational field somehow became constant and is going to remain so forever. So constant that "it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". Finally, light falls in a gravitational field with twice the acceleration of ordinary falling bodies:

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! [...] Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. [...] Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

In my view, as far as imbecility is concerned, Michio Kaku is the champion of the champions in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=69335
"World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix'. Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time. String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. [...] While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe is created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another. Without getting into physics itself, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence. "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

Pentcho Valev

Loading...