Einsteins Mistake

According to Ohanian

Einsteins synchronization procedure relies on the implicit assumption that the speed of light between the locations of the two clocks is the same in each direction: same speed from Berne to Lucerne and from Lucerne to Berne. And Einstein emphasized this meant that with the clocks synchronized by his procedure, it was not possible to perform a logically meaningful test of the constancy of light. As he told Besso, there is an inseparable relation between (synchronized) time and signal velocity. Any attempt to verify the constancy of the speed of light with these synchronized clocks would, of course, verify it. But the constancy is built into the synchronization, and therefore such an attempt would be circular reasoning like a cat chasing its own tail, it would prove nothing.

[i.e., clocks synchronized assuming light speed constancy, so when measuring light speed by these clocks it comes out constant.]

Einstein had deliberately designed his synchronization procedure to hide the effect of the speed of the Earth on the speed of light, because he thought this was clever and the right thing to do. In essence, Einsteins synchrononization procedure was a parlor trick to make the speed of light appear constant, regardless of what the speed really is.

But Einsteins trick had a fatal defect, and this was what Donald Crowhurst, drifting in mid-Atlantic on June 24, 1969 recognized when he exclaimed, You cant do THAT! and swindler! Crowhurst recognized that we can expose Einsteins parlor trick by testing the synchronization of the clocks by other means,.


How could Einstein have failed to see something so obvious? The explanation is that Einstein was not thinking like a physicist, but like a patent clerk. The most accurate available method for clock synchronization in 1905 was synchronization by electric signals (equivalent to light signals). This is what Einstein learnt in the patent office, and so he assumed that this was the right method to use for synchronization. He forgot that in the discussion of the foundations of relativity, he needed to pay attention to principles, not practice. He forgot he was writing a paper about physics, not a patent application..



The distinction between regarding the speed of light as constant by stipulation or as constant by experiment might seem like a splitting of hairs. ..But if you are planning an experimental test of some of the strange, counterintuitive predictions of the theory, then you need to know what part of relativity is a stipulation and what part is hypothesis, so you know what you can test- any part of relativity that is a (legitimate) stipulation cannot be tested in any meaningful way.

Ohanian also notes Pauli treated Einstein as an idiot on issues not to do with relativity; Pauli was apparently a mega-genius; and Einstein was being treated like a scared cow on issues of relativity by academia so couldnt question relativity.

c.RJAnderton2009-03-23

Roger Dumberton,dumb****, the experiments that confirm light speed isotropy do NOT use Einstein clock synchronisation.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000095000015150401000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169

Roger, the experiments that confirm light speed isotropy are NOT based on Einstein clock synchronisation. So, you are still an ignorant imbecile.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169

RE: roger, Einstein's mistake - quite a big one March 23 2009 at 11:54 AM

"Einsteins Mistake
According to Ohanian"

If I were Ohanian I would not have gone so far as to call Einstein an idiot, I would have done it sooner in the text, much sooner. Still, Hack, might be a better description of Einstein's work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169
A re-do of MM.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000095000015150401000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Same as above.


http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1
Again the same.
All they tried to do was re-invent the wheel by changing the spokes.

An idiot doing something useful is more useful than an idiot criticizing another idiot.

An human doing something useful is more useful than an human criticizing another human.

Re: Lal, the world of Anderton March 23 2009, 4:59 PM

Lal,
"An idiot doing something useful is more useful than an idiot criticizing another idiot."

I wouldn't call those researchers idiots.......well! actually I would...using the speed of light to test the speed of light is not real smart, it's like, trying to count to 11 using 10 fingers.

The isotropy or anisotropy of the speed of light can be tested experimentally.
For example, in an anisotropic media, the anisotropy can of the speed of light can be measured by basically the same means that would be used for vacuum. For example by using a resonator.

You are boring bob.

Re: Lal, Einstein's mistake - quite a big one March 23 2009, 6:24 PM

Lal,
"You are boring bob."

Wrong again Lal, it is you who is boring bob!

Re: Lal, Einstein's mistake - quite a big one March 23 2009, 5:46 PM
Lal,
"The isotropy or anisotropy of the speed of light can be tested experimentally.
For example, in an anisotropic media, the anisotropy can of the speed of light can be measured by basically the same means that would be used for vacuum. For example by using a resonator."

Sorry Lal, but the speed of light can not be tested using the speed of light as the control.

>>>the speed of light can not be tested using the speed of light as the control.

Correct, absolutely.

According to Essen: SR flawed ---->

There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einsteins assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believehttp://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

Everyone voted and Onestone won. Except for the veto vote from reality.

Concerning Onestone' errors: See the information athttp://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html


Stephen J Crothers is a mathematician par excellance, far beyond cinci or Lal. These local ego trips are clueless concerning any physical relationship to math.

Jose: Everyone voted and Onestone won. Except for the veto vote from reality.

Concerning Onestone' errors: See the information ahttp://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html


Stephen J Crothers is a mathematician par excellance, far beyond cinci or Lal. These local ego trips are clueless concerning any physical relationship to math.

cinci: Well you're right about one thing. I don't know enough math to determine whether Mr. Crothers is wrong. But you don't know enough to determine he's right either. I looked through a few of his papers and the thing I couldn't find is a prediction of some experiment that would support his ideas.

It's not clear that he opposes relativity so much as he thinks people are making erroneous applications of it. Is that how you see it?
***********************

>>>It's not clear that he opposes relativity so much as he thinks people are making erroneous applications of it. Is that how you see it?

yes, but those who have false beliefs about relativity are still within the relativists community and label those trying to correct the falsehoods as the anti-relativists.

Maximum score on the pseudoscience check list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

That's you Lal - maximum scoring pseudo