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.
Here is an obvious corollary of (A) which also validly follows from the postulates:
(A') If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SPEEDS UP.
The conclusion (A) is validly deducible from the postulates but is preposterous. It implies that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move relative to one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. So if Einstein had explicitly stated the validly deducible conclusion (A) in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.
Instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the following non sequitur (not following from Einstein's 1905 postulates):
(B) If two clocks are in relative motion, the moving one is slow and the stationary one is fast.
Here is an obvious corollary of (B) which is also non sequitur (does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates):
(B') Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SLOWS DOWN."
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE
Here is the original fraudulent text where, instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the non sequitur (B):
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/
It is easy to see that the valid deduction (A) doesn't, but the non sequitur (B) does predict 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
Einsteinians (including Einstein himself) diligently teach the non sequiturs (B) and (B') and persistently avoid the lethal for relativity valid deductions (A) and (A'):
Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion..." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368
Richard Feynman: "Now if all moving clocks run slower, if no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate, we shall just have to say, in a certain sense, that time itself appears to be slower in a space ship." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "...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." http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...y-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481
Jim Al-Khalili: "Einstein showed that for anything (or anyone) travelling at speeds approaching that of light...time literally runs more slowly." https://scienceinschool.org/2009/issue11/timetravel
Don Lincoln: "One of the claims of special relativity is that time passes more slowly for moving observers than stationary ones."
View: https://youtu.be/vnGWDYfweTI?t=39
(A) If two clocks are in relative motion, either clock is slower than the other as judged from the other clock's system.
Here is an obvious corollary of (A) which also validly follows from the postulates:
(A') If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SPEEDS UP.
The conclusion (A) is validly deducible from the postulates but is preposterous. It implies that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move relative to one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. So if Einstein had explicitly stated the validly deducible conclusion (A) in 1905, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish his paper.
Instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the following non sequitur (not following from Einstein's 1905 postulates):
(B) If two clocks are in relative motion, the moving one is slow and the stationary one is fast.
Here is an obvious corollary of (B) which is also non sequitur (does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates):
(B') Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you SLOWS DOWN."
Here is the original fraudulent text where, instead of the valid deduction (A), Einstein "deduced" the non sequitur (B):
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/
It is easy to see that the valid deduction (A) doesn't, but the non sequitur (B) does predict 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
Einsteinians (including Einstein himself) diligently teach the non sequiturs (B) and (B') and persistently avoid the lethal for relativity valid deductions (A) and (A'):
Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion..." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368
Richard Feynman: "Now if all moving clocks run slower, if no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate, we shall just have to say, in a certain sense, that time itself appears to be slower in a space ship." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "...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." http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...y-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481
Jim Al-Khalili: "Einstein showed that for anything (or anyone) travelling at speeds approaching that of light...time literally runs more slowly." https://scienceinschool.org/2009/issue11/timetravel
Don Lincoln: "One of the claims of special relativity is that time passes more slowly for moving observers than stationary ones."
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram