A critical analysis of einstein's article:

By Daniele Ronconi-Pensa and Giulio Ronconi

In this article of 1918 , the only one on the paradox of the clocks, Einstein tries to set the clock out of sync, resorting to the "induction" that he introduced in the gravitational field with General Relativity. But this field does not exist and, however, the numbers do not add up properly.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Youcanprint Self-Publishing
• Release date: Aug 11, 2015
• ISBN: 9788891197900

Book preview

DANIELE RONCORONI-PENSA, GIULIO A. RONCORONI

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EINSTEIN’S ARTICLE:

Dialog uber Einwande gegen die Relativitatstheorie

DIE NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN. 102 (1918): 697-702

Copyright © DANIELE RONCORONI-PENSA & GIULIO A. RONCORONI

SIAE (Rep. 2012004740 ); Library of United States Congress ( )

[e-mail] - [e-mail]

39 338 9449 388--- 39 333 2886 441

Titolo | A critical analysis of einstein’s article: Dialog uber Einwande gegen die Relativitatstheorie - DIE NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN. 102 (1918): 697-702

Autore | Daniele Roncoroni-Pensa & Giulio A. Roncoroni

Immagine di copertina a cura degli autori

ISBN | 9788891197900

© Tutti i diritti riservati all’Autore

Nessuna parte di questo libro può essere riprodotta senza il

preventivo assenso dell’Autore.

Youcanprint Self-Publishing

Via Roma, 73 - 73039 Tricase (LE) - Italy

www.youcanprint.it

[e-mail]

Facebook: facebook.com/youcanprint.it

Twitter: twitter.com/youcanprintit

TO ETTORE MAJORANA, ( COUSIN OF MY MOTHER

AND THE GRAND INQUISITOR)

THAT DID NOT EVEN NOTICE THE HERESY

INDEX

THERE IS AN ARTICLE…

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

THEORETICAL REMARKS

A) KINEMATICS

B) PHYSICS OF INDUCTION

OPERATIONAL REMARKS

A) THE EINSTEIN’S "EVENT" DEPURATED

B) QUANTIFICATION OF THE "EVENT

FIGURES OF EVENT

FIG. 1 KA STANDING

FIGG. 2, 3, 4, 5 K'B STANDING

FIRST SECTION

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE SPATIAL CONTRACTIONS

SECOND SECTION

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE HOUR DECELERATIONS

EINSTEIN-BORN’S CALCULATION

THIRD SECTION

NON-EXISTENCE OF THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD Gr

CRITICAL CONCLUSION

PROPOSITIVE CONCLUSION

INDEX OF NAMES

APPENDIXES

A) UNBELIEVABLE ERRORS IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT

B) A NOTE OF PERSONAL CHRONICLE

C) THE EINSTEIN’S TRANSLATED ARTICLE TAKEN FROM WIKISOURCE

THERE IS AN ARTICLE…

In the issue no. 102 (1918) of the German scientific journal Naturwissen schaften there is an almost unknown article - translated in English only after 1972 in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein - that is destined to receive the highest honours in the scientific chronicle as a milestone in the history of Physics because it contains the absolutely incontrovertible clearest falsification of the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity since it is written by the same hand which in 1905 in "Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper", (in the Annalens der Physik), had launched the same theory. It is the only case in the history in which a whole paradigm has become by now: one of the two pillars on which the whole current building of physics rests on, alongside the QM, it will result falsified by the same author that had erected it. Or better - and here is the historical interest of the story - it would have been counterfeited since that distant 1918 if only someone of the professionals of physics took the care to analyze with the due attention the refined tangle in which the author had hidden the confession of his failure. And instead - ouch singularity of the human adventures - the scientific community, reverting in the in verba magistri very derided scholastic oaths, has remained for one hundred years sat on this article reputed a solid rock without notice that instead it is only an empty hull that goes adrift. On the other hand, since it is a written document there are no uncertainties; sooner or later someone would have discovered and shown up it. According to some historiographical intuitions for a long time advanced already by Kuhn, the case has wanted that to deal with it would be a Roman unknown outsider engineer.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

The Lorentz transformations (LT) - completed by him in 1904 with a constructive method based on the known phenomenology, within a theory of absolute motion relative to the cosmic ether - quantify the theoretical forecast, later on largely supported by the phenomenology, of two unusual phenomena that happen in the material bodies (connected, as all obviously, by electromagnetic interactions; the material bodies and not the space or the abstract reference system K,K' and so on) in very fast motion relative to the ether because of : i) the bodies contract along their direction of motion and: ii) the local motions on these moving bodies slow down.

These two phenomena have the effect, between others things, to get the invariance of the Maxwell’s equations between the material systems in uniform motion relative to the ether, and with this they give the explanation of the found and otherwise incomprehensible constancy of the measure of the velocity of light c. That goes without saying that the existence of the absolute reference of ether imposes the asymmetrical use of the LT between bodies in mutual motion and that is imposes to apply the lengths contraction and the slow down of the local motions (or of the clocks that measure them) only to the material systems that are mostly in motion relative to ether and never vice versa. This theory is entirely exempt from contradictions.

However, given the difficulties for the physical characteristics that had to be attributed to ether, in the 1905 Einstein letting bygones be bygones, then generally valued as a stroke of genius - but very supported by his fiancée Maric and by his friend Besso - has believed to be able to cancel tout court ether from the vision of the world establishing a theory of relative motion in which the reference frame is indifferently one or the other of the two bodies in mutual motion. However, having to find again the LT asked for by the phenomenology, he has thought to put himself on a higher epistemological plan in which, reversing (and debasing) the constructive criterion of Lorentz, has set the invariance of c as principle in a theory of relative motion - his Restricted Relativity (RR) - that denies the existence of the absolute reference frame of ether. But this new, so hasty and supposedly higher paradigm, imposes the symmetrical use of the LT between the systems in mutual motion, that is it imposes to attribute the spatial contractions - and the hourly slow down - indifferently to the one or to the other of the two systems according to which system is chosen as at rest. However, this lead imme-diately to contradictions both relative to the contraction of bodies and relative to the slow down of the clocks which falsify the relativistic conjecture that it is the basis of it and they ask for that this conjecture be discarded. A conjecture that leads to self contradictions it doesn't give rise to any theory: but only to an empty set of words.

In analogous situations, entirely normal along the twists and turns of the history of the physics, the conjecture that leads to the contradictions - that is the lack of the absolute reference frame with the consequent relativity of the motion and the LT symmetrization - it would immediately have been discarded to firmly stay anchored to a theory of absolute motion in which it was necessary to detect a new universal reference frame that avoided the difficulties of the