Einstein's Destruction of Physics and Scientific Principles - by Peter Sujak 2017 - Article review

This document contains article review "Einstein's Destruction of Physics and Scientific Principles " by Peter Sujak written in 2017
To order to read the article select: https://www.academia.edu/34096411/Einsteins_Destruction_of_Physics_and_Scientific_Principles?

The book: "Einstein's Destruction of Physics and Scientific Principles" https://www.amazon.com.be/-/en/Peter-Sujak/dp/8027034949

• The text in italics is copied from the article.
  
• Immediate followed by some comments
  

Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Einstein’s destruction of logic and science
• 3.

Reflection

• Reflection 1 -
• Reflection 2 -

1. Introduction.

Einstein (1879 -1955) from 1887 till 1894 studied for 7 years at the Luitpold Gymnasium in Munich but he did not finish, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor's note (Dr. Talmud) claiming nervous exhaustion.
In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to Zürich Polytechnic, as he intended becoming a secondary school (Gymnasium) teacher. He attended gymnasium in Aarau, Switzerland, in 1895–96 to complete his secondary schooling. In January 1896 Einstein renounced his citizenship in the German Kingdom to avoid military service.
In 1896 Einstein enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Federal Polytechnic School in Zürich. Zürich Polytechnic School was upgraded to a school of the university type renamed as Federal Technical Highschool some 15 years later in 1911, with the right to grant graduate degrees. After two years study at Zürich Polytechnic School, Einstein failed a basic physics course of Physical experiments for beginners, scheduled for students during first two years. Obtaining experience about real-world of experimental physics discomforted him.

Thta's a pity.

One of his professors called him a lazy dog [1]. In March, 1899 Einstein was given an official director’s reprimand due to lack of diligence in physics practicum. His lowranked 4.9 average mark was just enough to let him get his diploma. In 1900, he was awarded a teaching diploma.
By graduating the Polytechnic School Einstein retrieved insufficient education (e.g. Maxwell's theory was not covered in school’s lectures) and retrieved insufficient experimental experience for the work in theoretical physics that he was trying to make later in his life.

In 1900, at 21, Einstein obtained his first wrist watch. At that time (no radios and televisions as well as no other radio signal transmitters existed, telephone was commonly utilized after 1910) the adjusting and synchronizing of clocks (simultaneity) was a weighty problem. From around 1880 in Europe the synchronizing of clocks was provided by transmitting time signals via telegraph lines to railway stations. For ordinary residents without contact to the railway station hearing passing by the train in regular time of a day was a most common method of clock synchronizing. No automobiles existed and the train was utilized for transport as the highest speed conveyor. That is why in his STR thought experiments Einstein always stands at the train station and fantasizes about synchronization of clocks by speed of light.

That also implies that Einstein's thoughts experiments are not really thought experiments, because they include Einstein's his own physical experiences.

In 1911, in Prague, in his 32nd year, Einstein and his family had electric lighting in their home for the first time. Five per cent of Berlin’s homes boasted electric power in 1914.
After obtaining his teaching diploma in 1900, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post. With the help of family friends he at last obtained his first job. From 1902 till 1909 he was a technical expert third class at the Swiss Patent Office, which meant that he was incompetent for a higher qualified position. He and his own family (in 1903 he married M. Maric, they separated in 1914 and divorced in 1919) were in a permanently distressed financial situation. Einstein tried to change this situation by producing and publishing an excessive number of fantasies, he called theories, from behind his patent clerk desk. All his fantasy theories immediately aroused conflicting controversy from all the great physicists of that time.

I expect conflicting with his opinions. The word 'all' is an exaggeration? Anyway Einstein was very lucky that he receieved comments.

2. Einstein’s destruction of logic and science

Einstein intended to work for a doctoral degree at the University of Zurich under H. F. Weber on a topic related to thermoelectricity, but Weber refused him. The properties of the ether or the kinetic theory of gases were the prominent subjects of student dissertations. Einstein submitted a dissertation on molecular forces in gases to the University of Zurich in 1901, about a year after graduation from the Zürich Polytechnic, but withdrew it early in 1902 in order to avoid controversy with Boltzmann.

You can expect want to prevent such a situation when you are a student.

Three years later in 1905, after Boltzmann left Germany to Austria, the dissertation was again submitted.
Boltzmann was the most significant physicist in these topics and published many works after he received his PhD degree in 1866 for his dissertation on the kinetic theory of gases.
In January, 1906, Einstein’s thesis was accepted. On the 15th of January, 1906 he was awarded a doctoral degree and thus upgraded his Polytechnic School non-high school education to the high school level. The Annalen der Physik received a different version of his thesis for publication. Einstein corrected this publication from 1905 in 1906 in a published supplement to the thesis.

That is brave.

In 1911 Jacques Bancelin performed experiments in Perrin’s laboratory and found a significant discrepancy between the results of his experiments and Einstein’s predictions in his 1905 published and later in 1906 already once corrected dissertation paper.
A calculational error in Einstein’s 1906 paper was announced. Einstein himself was not able to find the error in his calculations and, in 1911, asked his student and collaborator Ludwig Hopf to check the calculations. “I rechecked my old calculations and arguments and could find no errors in them.
You would do a great service to the cause if you made a thorough examination of my arguments”. Correction of the error, which was found by Hopf, is published in Einstein’s 1911 “Correction to My Paper: A New determination of molecular dimensions”. In introduction to this paper Einstein thanked Hopf for finding the errors.

That means Einstein is a human.

This was the second correction paper of his 1905 paper.
This correction was reiterated in Einstein’s 1920 paper and integrated into the republication of Einstein’s dissertation in Einstein 1922.
In connection with relativity it is symptomatic that errors was found in derivatives of velocity components, which occur in equations for pressure components. By linking at will the Lorentz factor to classic physical laws at different reference frames, Einstein in STR produced a number of ‘new physical laws’ for reliance of reference frames (moving bodies) to their velocity.

What this learns us that using different reference frames is complex.
Consider object 1 at rest in frame 1 linked to object 1. Consider a second object 2 with a speed v2 in frame 1 based on a clock 1 at rest in frame 1.
Consider frame 2 linked to object 2. In that frame object 2 is at rest and object 1 is moving. In frame 2 there is also a clock 2 at rest.
Question what is the speed of object 1 in frame 2?

But there was never solved or even raised in STR the question of how bodies, inertial frames, receive their velocities, which was the central question of classical physics from which laws of classical physics was derived.

Such a controversial procedure as with his dissertation was inextricably linked with the whole scientific, theoretical, fantasy work of Einstein’s career from its beginning till the end.

To use the word fantasy is wrong. In fact Einstein challenged existing observations and experiments; there is nothing wrong with that.

In 1907 Einstein published a paper ‘On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it’. One year later in 1908 he published paper titled - Correction to the paper: “On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it” on which 2 pages around 10 relations from the 1907 paper were corrected.

In January 1907 Einstein published a paper on Planck’s theory of radiation and the theory of specific heat and after Planck’s objection, in March 1907, Einstein published a correction paper “Correction to my paper: Planck’s theory of radiation, etc”. Such a controversial procedure was also the case in his April 1908 paper ‘On the fundamental electromagnetic equations for moving bodies’ which was half a year later corrected in 3 relations in the paper of August 1908 - Correction to the paper: “On the fundamental electromagnetic equations for moving bodies”. After Max Laue (Nobel prize in 1914) showed mistakes in Einstein’s last paper, Einstein in a second correction paper published in December 1908 corrected the previous corrected relations in around 10 relations - Remarks on our paper “On the fundamental electromagnetic equations for moving bodies”.

Such a controversial procedure was also the case of Einstein’s 1905 paper, the so called central work of special relativity ‘On the electrodynamics of moving bodies’.

Page 3

This Einstein paper contains not a single reference although until 1905 there existed far more than 10 papers with similar or equal contents and even with almost the same title to Einstein’s 1905 paper, written by a physicist who really deeply understood these topics, unlike Einstein.
From them we can mention mainly

• Thompson 1881, On the Electric and Magnetic Effects produced by the Motion of Electrified Bodies
• Voigt 1887, On the Principle of Doppler
• Heaviside 1889, Electromagnetic waves, the propagation of potential, and the electromagnetic effects of a moving charge
• Lorentz 1895, Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies
• Poincaré 1898, The Measure of Time
• Lorentz 1899, Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems
• Cohn 1901, On the equations of the electromagnetic field for moving bodies
• Wien 1904, On the differential equations of the electrodynamics for moving bodies
• Cohn 1904, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Systems

-and many others.
The fact that the reason and result of Einstein’s 1905 paper was to bring a solution in the mystery of nonphysical time manipulation, which replaced the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, is confirmed in Einstein’s 60 page 1907 paper ‘On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it’.
In the paper we can read “Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiments contradiction was removed by Lorentz and FitzGerald ad hoc postulate of a certain contraction of moving bodies as artificial means of saving the theory.
Surprisingly it turned out that a sufficiently sharpened new conception of time was all that was needed to overcome the contradiction…the conception of a luminiferous ether does not fit into this conception ..therefore Lorentz’s - FitzGerald theory should be abandoned…”.
Lorentz’s – FitzGerald’s clear physical reasoning at M-M experiment, consisting in the conclusion that dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered under the pressure of the ether by their motion through the ether, Einstein considered as an artificial means, a kind of ad hoc postulate and contrary to his nonphysical (time is not a physical notion and is a subsidiary notion to movement) metaphysical explanation in deformation of notion of time he selfpraised as non-artificial.
How ridiculous!
The purpose of Einstein’s dilation of time was to bring an adverse solution to the length contraction solution of Lorentz and FitzGerald. Purported null results of M-M experiments using the Lorentz factor can be explained by either the contraction of length or the time dilation, but not by both at the same time.
But Einstein declared later at least from a 1911 paper or e.g. explicitly in his 1920 book Relativity " …by means of Lorentz transformation...the rigid rod is shorter in motion.. If we had based our considerations on the Galilei transformation we should not have obtained a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion”.
Einstein here controversially renounced his first physical approach in STR from 1905 -1907 based on the Galilei transformation which was Einstein’s basic approach to derive STR laws.

So later Einstein, as well as today’s official physics brings the opposite claim to his conclusion from 1905-1907 that Lorentz - FitzGerald theory should be abandoned.
According to Einstein after 1911 both the length contraction of rigid bodies jointly with time dilatation are real physical results of STR although purported null results of M-M experiments cannot be explained by both.
So, although Einstein from the position of his ingenious ‘sharpened new conception of time’, based on the Galilei transformation in 1907, disapproved Lorentz and FitzGerald’s conception as ‘artificial means of a certain contraction of moving bodies‘, this Lorentz artificial means became a dominant conception of his later ‘improved’ theory of relativity.

In Einstein’s 1905 paper, lengths of measuring rigid rods undergo no changes in different inertial frames –“In accordance with the principle of relativity, the length of the rod in the moving system must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod”. The so called length contraction in this paper subsists in different measurement results of lengths at different velocities of frames. Relativity in the 1905 paper lays in different measurement results arising from measurements of the time, simultaneity, length and velocities in inertial frames at different uniform translation velocities.

Page 4

As the different results in measuring of lengths flow from the time simultaneity and the different results in measuring of velocities flow from different results in measuring of run of times, in the 1905 paper (as is confirmed in the 1907 paper) all results end in measuring different results of times.
Till this point, the requirements of STR that length of bodies, length of space intervals, time intervals remain in all inertial frames the same appear as natural and STR transformation relations simply provide the same results in different reference frames.
But the absurdity of STR arises from the postulate that in all reference frames, regardless of their velocities, the measurement of velocity of light must provide the same results of the ultimate and always constant velocity of the speed of light (this postulate of light constant velocity Einstein recalled in 1913, as is detailed below). This physical absurdity is in STR afterwards attained in Einstein’s 1907 paper [1] by the controversial stunt claim that transformation of time intervals are no longer different measurement results in different frames, but are their own physical reality. Frames with different velocity have a different clock rate and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, which results in the absurd addition law for velocities. Afterwards space neither exists independently of a physical reference frame nor is associated with a privileged reference frame.

In the 1905 paper the propagation of light in empty space had standard (so as waves in the water or in the air) natural requirements of physics –“The light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body”. But Einstein, in his absurd addition law for velocities, in which by change of velocities also time is changed which results in 1 + 1 =/2, come to absurdity that mutual velocities of all moving bodies or photons is always c (more detailed in chapter 4.).
The separation of quantities of the velocity and time as independent quantities is the greatest disaster and fraud of STR and GTR. In physics and, primarily, in mechanics the time and movement and the time unit and the unit velocity are the same notion and cannot be separated, as is explained in chapter 5. of this book.

As is shown below in this chapter all these STR claims from 1905 resp. 1907 were recalled by Einstein from 1911 till 1934.
Another situation in the row of simultaneous validity of two opposite claims in STR is the claim that mass in reliance with velocity is increasing and the simultaneous claim that rest mass is an invariant in all reference frames and does not increase with the increasing velocity of frames.

In Einstein’s 60 page 1907 paper, bodies in different inertial frames are rigid without any changes and all Einstein’s physics consists in changes of his new time, time coordinates, clocks, which results in his new absurd addition of velocities. Mass of bodies as well as electric mass is stated as independent of the state of motion of the reference frame and are constants at any reference frame. In this paper, change of frequencies in optics are a consequence of Einstein’s newly introduced and calculated group velocities of bodies.
But later in his papers yet in 1911 [1] Einstein’s basic argument is - “inertial mass of a body falling in gravity is increasing and this must be equal to increase in its gravity mass, otherwise bodies would not fall with the same acceleration and Galileo’s law would be not valid”.
Subsequently, it is claimed that acceleration at fall of bodies in gravity can by simulated by acceleration of these bodies in void space. So increasing of inertial mass at acceleration generally is firm first fraction of this claim contrary to claims in STR from 1905-1907.
But this last affirmation Einstein sequentially fully uproots in his perhaps best known thought experiments presented in 1913 paper [1] right in the first clause – “An observer enclosed in box can in no way decide whether the box is at rest in a static gravitational field, or whether it is in accelerated motion, maintained by forces acting on the box, in a space that is free of gravitational fields (equivalence hypothesis)”.
This contradicts the 1911 paper that the ‘weight’ (the pressure at the bottom of the box) of the accelerated observer enclosed in box will increase while his weight in the static gravitational field remains constant. So there is no problem for an observer enclosed in Einstein’s box to decide whether the box is at rest in a static gravity field or whether it is in accelerated motion, maintained by forces acting on the box. Simply sensitive enough scales are needed. In this book, in section 4. we bring a closer view of this schizoid Einstein logic.

Page 5

Here we clearly see that Einstein claimed two mutually exclusive contrary claims that prevail for him across the whole of his relativity theory. Einstein’s reasoning at introducing basic axioms at STR is contradictory from a physical point of view and impossible from the logical point of view. In his 1907 paper he states -“What is the influence of (uniform) acceleration on the shape of the body? If such an influence is present, it will consist of a constantratio dilatation in the direction of acceleration”. Contrary to this claim and according to length contraction fully accepted by Einstein after 1907, the shape of bodies are contracted with reliance on their velocity. But in physics there is no other possibility than for the acceleration to come from the one velocity to the other one.

In a 1911 paper Einstein came to his physically utmost idiocy (here Feynman’s simile is used), which he called “a consequence of fundamental significance” of his theory that “in the gravity field the frequency of light is everywhere the same but just the clock by which we measure the frequency runs slower”!
According to this Einstein’s revelation of “fundamental significance” all our experimental observation of various ratios of refractive indices of the light (ratio of change of light frequencies) at the transition between different densities of the translucent substances or fluids should always equal to one and “just the clock by which we measure the frequency runs slower”.
Simultaneous validity of two opposite claims in STR represents even the very first postulate of STR about always constant velocity of light speed and primary claim of relativity that all velocity are relative.
Although allegedly biggest discovery of STR is that all velocities are relative and no absolute velocity exists, the STR is based on the absolute, fixed and never changing constant velocity of light. So if the speed of light is the absolute velocity, then we can measure all other velocity as absolute taking the speed of light as base and the primary STR claim about relativity of all velocities is nonsense.
On top of it in the second of two postulates of Einstein’s special theory of relativity he simultaneously declares that all velocities of bodies to velocity of light are always the velocity of light. So, if the speed of light is chosen as the basic comparative velocity then no other velocity than the velocity of light can be measured.
On this schizoid base is constructed the special theory of relativity, allegedly the biggest achievement of the human spirit in the history of mankind.

In the 1913 paper [1] ‘Outline of the generalized theory’ we can read - “I have shown in previous papers that the equivalence hypotheses leads to the consequence that in a static gravitational field the velocity of light c depends on the gravitational potential.

In the univere there exists no objects which are at rest. For example in a binary systems both stars are moving. In our galaxy all stars are moving.
The same which the gravitational field.

This led me to the view that the special theory of relativity provides only an approximation of reality; it should apply only in the limit case where differences in the gravitational potential in the space-time region under consideration are not too great”.

That seems to be a personal opinion of the author of this paper.

As the gravitational potential is changing in space from a star to a star, from a galaxy to a galaxy so, according to the 1913 paper, the velocity of light in a vacuum is no longer constant and is changing (standard supposition of physicist before 1905).

The velocity of light (electromagnetic field) and the velocity of the gravitational field are physical completely different. The main physical difference is that path of photons is bended while the path of gravitons is straight.

This means, in fact, an abolition of the first principle of STR which is based on the firm proclamation that the velocity of light is the ultimate and never changing constant velocity in the vacuum of void space, that no carrying substance of the light propagation exists and that nothing can influence the ultimate velocity of light in a vacuum.
So the allegedly already precise STR laws from 1905 (contrary to Newton's and Maxwell’s laws which are then allegedly just an approximation of STR laws) become in 1913 just approximations again and need further correction.
The consequence of these Einstein claims that, in the gravitational field the velocity of light is changing (as well as wave length in relativistic gravitation redshift), is that Hubble’s explanation of the law of redshifts (as light loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels through space) is correct and the BigBang theory must be discarded.

No comment about this claim.

Einstein’s theories are proclaimed as his theories when he simply replaced the cautious claims of these specialists about proportionality by a sign for equality. Einstein’s theories are also proclaimed as his, even when specialists in the essential parts substantially repaired his theories.

Page 6

Einstein’s theoretical works are then characterized by publishing inceptive theories, followed by publishing many corrections, reparations and amendments to these inceptive theories. Most of Einstein’s theories Einstein himself repaired, retracted or corrected according the experimental and theoretical work of other physicists.

This dialectical procedure, in which Einstein and contemporary relativity offer allegedly primary valid physical statements and, at the same time, also claim as valid the opposite claim to these primary statements is repeated many times in all special and general relativity.
No one knows what relativity factually says and so these statements actually cannot be refuted or confirmed. The result is a conflict of frenzied circular patterns of thought and action, confusion and destruction of logical, philosophical thinking of man and the destruction of physics as a whole.

Go Back to Article Review
Back to my home page Index