DataPDF Available

PerfectNonsensV2

Authors:
Gregor L. Grabenbauer 1/5
D
ID
E
INSTEIN
C
OMPILE
P
ERFECT
N
ONSENSE
?
Gregor L. Grabenbauer
gg@grabenbauer,de
February 2016
(revised 8. September 2016)
Anatoli A. Vankov[1] presented in his paper “On Controversies in Special Relativity” (2006) his
profound doubts on Einstein’s principle that spherical waves are to be described from a moving
frame of reference as a spherical wave too. He argued that despite all the popular presentations
in course books the shape of a spherical wave cannot be discovered from the moving frame
because of the aberration of light: “
The truth is that the problem of shape of light front is,
indeed, tightly related to the aberration and Doppler effects.”
THE LOR E N T Z T RA N S F O R MA T I O N AP P L I E D
In his in 1905 Einstein stated that by applying the Lorentz transformation the shape of a
sphere would hold in the moving frame too.
„Zur Zeit  = ‘ = 0 werde von dem zu dieser Zeit gemeinsamen Koordinatenursprung
beider Systeme aus eine Kugelwelle ausgesandt, welche sich im System mit der
Geschwindigkeit ausbreitet. Ist (, , ) ein eben von dieser Welle ergriffener Punkt, so
ist also
² + ² + ² = ²².
Diese Gleichung transformieren wir mit Hilfe unserer Transformationsgleichungen
und erhalten nach einfacher Rechnung:
′² + ′² + ′² = ²′².
Die betrachtete Welle ist also auch im bewegten System betrachtet eine Kugelwelle von
der Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit . Hiermit ist gezeigt, dass unsere beiden
Grundprinzipien miteinander vereinbar sind.“
The translation of Einstein’s 1905 Electrodynamics paper states for the last paragraph
2
:
„The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of
propagation when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two
fundamental principles are compatible.”
The equations of the Lorentz transformation applied herein are given as follows:
=
(

)
=
(
+

)
=
(
/
²
)
=
(
+
/
²
)
Given a spherical wave by the equation above
Gregor L. Grabenbauer 2/5
² + ² + ² = ²²
we have to show that by applying the Lorentz transformations a secondary equation will be
produced having the same form. The same algebraic form turns out to give the same geometrical
shape.
As the vector takes the direction parallel to the equations    and    were supplied.
The calculation steps are given in detail as follows:
  
 
    
  
      
   
    
     


   
Obviously we have the same form within the moving frame of reference S’



 

which seems to indicate that all frames of reference have the same spherical shape to observe.
HOW TO P R O V E EI N S T E I N S SPHE R I C A L EQ U A T I O N?
The Einstein’s starting equation was:
    
As the left hand side and right hand side must have the same value, we get:
  
 
The so-called Minkowski metric is presenting the same equation as follows:
  
 
Hence, what Einstein showed to be equal was:
 
 



Summarizing the lines above we see that for all transformations of the Lorentz kind the
transformed values itself are restricted to

 
and the proof of any invariant is limited to  
Gregor L. Grabenbauer 3/5
Einstein did prove that there is a sphere-like formula for every point to describe. What he
omitted was to define some unique radius for all points of the same shape. To understand the
fundamental nonsense of Einstein’s ‘proof’ it’s important to outline that only points that share
the same x-value will be mapped to the same shape. As Einstein introduced the t-coordinates as
not only arbitrary but rather as some real time values the conventional reception of his ideas, i.e.
to assume that his kind of thinking would go logically straight, did cause the major part of this
error. There are given no constraints for pairs of symbols like ’²~², ’² < ² or 
!
= 
"
,
therefore the variables of ’ are not tightly bound against . According to Einstein’s idea to
show the compatibility of his principles every point is mapped to its very own shape and one
spherical shape ends up in as many different shapes as points exist along the x-axis.
#\$%&'(\$%)\$)%*'+,*-('./'/00+*\$%'&*1&*2(
&+.(,(
3
/,(2/++()'*'.(&/2(&+.(,(
3

The notion of time in motion that takes different values out of the same time at rest is quite
unknown. Do different time values indicate different times to take place or do all points of the
coordinate system in motion share the same time but have different constant delays? The
interpretation of an indefinite number of different times –like Wolfgang Pauli gave it– produces
an indefinite number of different shapes out of one shape at rest. To show that basic principles
hold just by demonstrating that there may be drawn a sphere through any point - this is
completely impossible. In order to prove that all points of 3 are mapped to 3 one has to assure
that the formulae of all points of some sphere share the same radius:
4
5
5
5
567
 
7
The constraints above directly forbid different times within the same shape. When fulfilling
these constraints all attempts to introduce some relativity of simultaneity in order to cope with
manifold shapes are to be rejected immediately. To allow non-simultaneity as some valid kind of
simultaneity would perturb the right hand side of the equation above and enable us to proclaim
nonsense by highly sophisticated means.
The variables of Einstein’s formula were given without any indexes. Being aware of the idea that
time coordinates of  are limited to single points of space, Einstein would have had to write
down3:
4
5
5
5
567
 
5
Gregor L. Grabenbauer 4/5
This example shows the application of the Einstein criterion for circular shapes. The shapes
occur as 2D-projection of spherical waves originating at point Q and expanding with   . The
Points 8 and 9 are transformed to 8and 9 using the Lorentz transformation. Equations of the
form
 
are fulfilled by any of the four points, but the points 8 and 9 are dedicated
to different circles. As all points show    the constraint
 
would be sufficient to
prove. Taking into account that is a variable and  is obliged to be a variable there remains
nothing to be checked. The equations
 
can take different -values if and only if the
values of :;< are allowed to differ. There was no principle to enforce or indication to be read
that the moving system may encounter point 8 and point 9 at different times
!
= 
"
.
The picture above shows a simulation at rest with two different circles (light gray) for the given
time value   . As the radius of circles is a linear function of time even in moving states for
any small circle through 8at time >
?
with @8
A
A
A
A
A
A
 >
?
there exists some even larger circle
through 9’ with @9
A
A
A
A
A
A
 >
B >
?
.
!
E and C@D
"
E indicate the time needed    to expand the
circles that start in @. The idea to deploy different times would cause the theory to create as
many circles as different points are given by the original shape. This would end up in stupidity as
the self-imposed principle of covariance cannot hold: Producing an infinite number of shapes out
of one shape will give an indefinite set of tasks of transformations. Finally, if the shapes are
intended to occur at different times and there is not given a final time to stop further
occurrences no retransformation may ever be completed. This is a consequence of the switch
from implicit timing in the frame a rest to explicit timing convention.
The Einstein idea to slice the time by creating non-simultaneous events in the moving system
drags severe bugs. The system at rest is thought to be static because there is no time index for
the objects, no time index at the points. All objects within the system at rest share the same time.
As any point of the system in motion may have some different time to indicate its specific time
dependency the system carries as many static subsystems as different times occur. The system
Gregor L. Grabenbauer 5/5
in motion has all the features needed to record each object at its very own point of time.
Moreover, the static system may be described synchronously whereas the dynamic system is
given by asynchronous description, each object taking its time index explicitly. It seems quite
impossible that there exists a valid transform from the moving system to some static system
because the information of so many static systems cannot be stored into one system without loss
of precision or uniqueness.
CONCLU S I O N
Einstein seemed to believe that the shape of a spherical wave is given in the moving
System S' if the observer of S' is able to describe it by some spherical equation. Einstein mixed
up two elements successfully. He never used the common intension of “it” as holistic structure
referenced by “to describe it” but he thought that giving some point the same formula, i.e. time
slicing the shape into points that may be viewed as part of some sphere, would match the
intension of “it”.
Being able to describe something using a specific form is nothing to proof anything. If an
algebraic form is equivalent to some geometrical shape the presentation of it may be concerned
as some evidence which geometrical constructions have in general. But practical applications
need a lot more of constraints to be checked in order to get some evidence.
#\$%&'(\$%&*FG(H'\$-(I/&'*J\$-(,\$&('*&*2((-\$)(%H(FK'.((LM\$-/0(%H(*1
'.(1*,2M0/\$%*,)(,'*1M01\$0.\$&J(%(,/0H*-/,\$/%H(+,\$%H\$+0(
If we are able to paint a ball of diameter N within a coordinate system using the equating
principle    N and if we have painted a ball then we would have done it if and only
if N B . But if we teach to paint a ball by applying a rule like     N the most
important constraint may be refrained. If the Lorentz transformation cannot be used to establish
some equivalence of diameters of balls for what is it useful then?
If we take into account that any observer can see shapes only by apparent simultaneous
events (i.e. simultaneously incoming photons) the situation described by Einstein is drastically
flawed with errors. Did Einstein actually kidding someone as he wrote his Elektrodynamik-
paper?
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0606130.pdf,
Vankov, Anatoli Andrei:“On Controversies in Special Relativity”, 06/14/2006
[2] http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[3] The other idea so cope with the mismatch is left untouched: Einstein could have thought that common
time is not different of kind to time  which is related to single points of space. To enforce this idea
variable would have to be replaced by  and the constraint   , given by Einstein for the ‘slow
running clocks’ only, would have to hold throughout Lorentz transformation as interpreted by
Einstein.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.