J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption
From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/01/04
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Would NASA impress?"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: EjP: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:59:57 -0500
This post concisely debunks Einstein's 1916/1962 derivation of the
Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (BEER).
The 'reductio ad absurdum' or 'reduction to the absurd' logical
technique depends on a logical process producing contradictory
statements. To exercise the technique consciously one assumes a
possibly false theorem or hypothesis to be true, with the consequence
that if correct logic is then exercised one my stumble on a final or
interim result that contradicts the original theorem. In such a case,
that original theorem has been proved invalid.
That process requires impeccable reasoning following the initial
assumption, but the principle is clear: logical processes that involve
contradictory and mutually exclusive statements are invalid.
Einstein initiates his process by asserting four basic equations and
adds a fifth in his process:
x = ct
x = -ct
x = vt
x' = ct'
x' = -ct'
There are several crimes against logic and science in the assertion of
that set of equations.
A. The value of c is known to be positive non-zero so x=ct and x=-ct
can be mutually valid only when t=0, but the derivation is supposed to
produce an equation valid for all non-negative values of t.
B. Similarly for t' in x'=ct' and x'=-ct'.
C. The value of v is asserted by Einstein and his flock as being
always in the range -c < v < c, but if x=ct and x=vt could somehow be
mutually valid, it would require v=c.
D. By asserting the existence of t' in the formula for x', Einstein
reasons in circles. If the derivation were not otherwise absolutely
invalid, it would be because he asserted x'=ct' instead of x'=ct, and
similarly for x'=-ct' instead of x'=ct.
If you do not understand the idiocy in simultaneously asserting the
various contradictory equations that resolvable only if t=x=t'=x'=0
when deriving equations for all values of x,t,x',t' then you are
either an idiot or hopelessly corrupt.
In Einstein's original (1905) derivation of the BEER he does not
produce the circularity of argument in this 1916/1962 derivation but
he does assert the mutually contradictory formulae.
In effect, he implicitly asserts both x=ct and x=-ct but reasonably,
with the expressions x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v), where x' is a constant
value of x. These assertions are not mutually exclusive because they
are not imposed simultaneously but as sequential, one about light
moving in one direction, THEN being reflected in the other.
However, he then re-asserts t=x'/(c-v) in such a way that it thus
contradicts the now simultaneous t=x'/(c+v) assertion.
Then, to derive ludicrously the erroneous concept that the BEER call
for time dilation, he asserts x=vt.
eleaticus
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Would NASA impress?"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: EjP: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: J. Advanced SR-cult Idiocies and Corruption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|