Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359404 > unrolled thread

Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:07 -0700
    Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 16:14 +0000

#359404 — Re: EINSTEIN'S MOST BLATANT LIE

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:02:37 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In Einstein's 1905 scenario there is no turning-around period (only the
> outward part of the trip is considered):

Of course not, unfortunate fool.  Einy wasn't describing the twin paradox.
In fact, it hadn't been thought up yet.

> So, in the 1905 scenario, in accordance with David Morin's statement above,
> (an observer in the system of) the moving clock (initially at A) observes
> the stationary clock (at B) runing slow all along, which means that
> Einstein's conclusion is invalid (does not follow from the postulates).

Only a logic-challenged fool could come up with such a stupid claim.

> The valid (even though absurd) conclusion is:
> 
> Either clock is running slow, as judged from the other clock's system.

Which scenario does NOT have a turnaround process.

> Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum.

Clearly, Pentcho's thinking (or, rather, lack thereof) is reduced to abject
 absurdity.

> In a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world, the underlying
> premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, would be
> declared false.

Prevaricating Preposterous Pentcho avoids reality by pretending the real
world doesn't exist.  But the real world has copious experimental evidence
that Einy's 2nd postulate is correct:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity

https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf

https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf

> Einsteinians may be tempted to try to save the theory by referring to the
> initial acceleration of the moving clock in Einstein's 1905 scenario, but
> that would be an unfortunate step - things will get worse. 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Actually, the initial acceleration WILL have an effect on the clocks down
the line.  Iss Protrusively Preposterous Pentcho so math-challenged that
he can't demonstrate this effect?  Yes, he is.  If he had a brain in his
head, he could do it.

And Prevaricating Pentcho STILL refuses to consider the deceleration at the
turning point.  Note that he also refuses to do any REAL mathematics.
This is because he is a math-challenged nincompoop.

Gary

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#359527

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:02:37 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> In Einstein's 1905 scenario there is no turning-around period (only the
>> outward part of the trip is considered):
> 
> Of course not, unfortunate fool.  Einy wasn't describing the twin
> paradox. In fact, it hadn't been thought up yet.

I agree entirely. Many aftermath phenomena came much letter as a result of 
those inevitable consequences. Erroneously attributed to Einy, but his 
theory was too young even to be known at that time, much less to analyse 
its consequences. (I'm just guessing, but you are right). 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web