Einstein's 1905 Invalid Deduction

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail the following conclusion:

If two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized but then one moves towards and finally meets the other, either clock will see the other lagging behind.

The conclusion is validly deducible from the postulates but is obviously absurd, which shows that at least one of the postulates is false (reductio ad absurdum). So if Einstein had obeyed logic in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.

Einstein fraudulently tweaked the conclusion and camouflaged the absurdity. Here is the tweaked version:

If two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized but then one moves towards and finally meets the other, the stationary clock will see the moving clock lagging behind while the moving clock will see the stationary running fast.

And the fraudulent text:

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/

The tweaked version is clearly non sequitur - it doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. Still it became Einstein's "my precious", for two reasons:

1. It doesn't sound absurd.

2. It entails 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

 

[Pentcho Valev]

In 1972 Herbert Dingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle tried to expose Einstein's 1905 abuse of logic but it was too late:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

The Einsteinian ideology had already become all-powerful, the scientific community was completely brainwashed, and Dingle's criticism was just as audible as a cry in a vacuum:

"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]

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? Einstein introduced the idiocy in 1918:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

It is assumed that both twins (or clocks) are in this homogeneous gravitational field during the turning-around period, and, accordingly, both experience gravitational time dilation. The gravitational potential, however, is so different at the two locations that, during the short turning-around period, the stay-at-home twin gets "suddenly older":

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

Einstein's 1918 homogeneous gravitational field is perhaps the greatest idiocy in the history of officially established science. Einsteinians either avoid the story or teach it euphemistically, with noticeable embarrassment, and never mention the homogeneous gravitational field.