Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Pentcho Valev
Richard Muller inadvertently repudiates Einstein's relativity:
http://news.berkeley.edu/20... "Because the future doesn?t yet exist, we can?t travel into the future, he [Richard Muller] asserts."
Einsteinians deduce a different conclusion from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/dam... Thibault Damour: "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")."
If, as Muller believes, "the future doesn't yet exist" and "we can?t travel into the future", either Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false or the jumping into the future described by Damour is not a deductive consequence of this postulate. Both implications are facts: Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate IS false and the jumping into the future described by Damour is NOT a deductive consequence of this postulate.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails symmetrical time dilation – either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published – symmetrical time dilation is absurd (not even wrong). Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation – the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ete... ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."
In 1918 Einstein informed the world that, although there was indeed a contradiction in his special relativity, his general relativity did have the solution to the clock paradox:
http://sciliterature.50webs... Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
The problem is obvious – if it is general relativity that gives the solution (the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST), how did Einstein reach this solution in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked this question in 1972 but it was too late – the world had already been fatally brainwashed:
http://blog.hasslberger.com... Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "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?"
Pentcho Valev
Dileep Sathe
Newton's idea of space and time was much differnt from Einstein's. Newton's idea could be understood by common man easily. This is why, I think, there was an unsettlted dispute between a leader of GRG and a common man, I have narrated it on Physics World, UK, on 30 November 2015. It can be considered as dispute between Newton and Einstein of 21st century. The problem arises because human-beings do not have organs for sensing space and time. As there problem in understanding Einstein's STC, Space-Time Continuum, understanding Richard Muller's creation of Space and Time is more difficuolt to understand and accept.
Pentcho Valev
Richard Muller inadvertently repudiates Einstein's relativity:
http://news.berkeley.edu/20... "Because the future doesn?t yet exist, we can?t travel into the future, he [Richard Muller] asserts."
Einsteinians deduce a different conclusion from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/dam... Thibault Damour: "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")."
If, as Muller believes, "the future doesn't yet exist" and "we can?t travel into the future", either Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false or the jumping into the future described by Damour is not a deductive consequence of this postulate. Both implications are facts: Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate IS false and the jumping into the future described by Damour is NOT a deductive consequence of this postulate.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails symmetrical time dilation – either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published – symmetrical time dilation is absurd (not even wrong). Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation – the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ete... ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."
In 1918 Einstein informed the world that, although there was indeed a contradiction in his special relativity, his general relativity did have the solution to the clock paradox:
http://sciliterature.50webs... Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
The problem is obvious – if it is general relativity that gives the solution (the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST), how did Einstein reach this solution in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked this question in 1972 but it was too late – the world had already been fatally brainwashed:
http://blog.hasslberger.com... Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "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?"
Pentcho Valev
Dileep Sathe
Newton's idea of space and time was much differnt from Einstein's. Newton's idea could be understood by common man easily. This is why, I think, there was an unsettlted dispute between a leader of GRG and a common man, I have narrated it on Physics World, UK, on 30 November 2015. It can be considered as dispute between Newton and Einstein of 21st century. The problem arises because human-beings do not have organs for sensing space and time. As there problem in understanding Einstein's STC, Space-Time Continuum, understanding Richard Muller's creation of Space and Time is more difficuolt to understand and accept.