What did Einstein actually say?

[justafool]

I recall reading somewhere that Einstein, later in life, admitted that SR uses a hidden preferred frame of reference, or in other words, an absolute imaginary frame that underlies his two claimed frames, the "stationary and the moving".

Has anyone come across this type of admission? I'm trying to find some mention of it in writing.

Anyone?

I know he admitted that there must be an ether like structure in the universe so that our Laws of Physics can function, and also his statement that he was no confident in any of his theories, thought they would not stand for long.

But what about his admission about his 1905 paper using an absolute reference while claiming that there us no such thing?

Thanks.

[crawler]

No i cant remember Einstein himself saying or admitting that STR needs a preferred frame.
But i seem to recall that Einstein accidentally invoked a preferred frame somewhere somehow.
And for sure Einsteinians have over the years invoked preferred frames, eg Hafele & Keating with their clocks.

Einstein more or less admitted that there was an ether, but i don't think that he in any way needed that ether to act as a preferred frame, nor that he needed an ether to help with any laws etc (at least not to help with any calculations or equations etc) ie he admitted that some of his physics doesn't work if space is empty in every way.

[Robertus Maximus]

Special Relativity and the Lorentz Equations: errors in Einstein’s 1905 paper

Taken from the SIS website:

https://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/2024/ ... 905-paper/

"The paper in the title has just been published in Physics Essays 37, January 2024, Alasdair Beal .. ISSN 0836-1398 [print] and 2371-2236 [online].

"Special Relativity and the Lorentz Equations: Errors in Einstein’s 1905 paper. In 1905 Einstein presented his Special Theory of Relativity and claimed to prove that the Lorentz Transformation equations and time dilation of moving clocks can be deduced from it. In a new paper in Physis Essays 37.1, March 2024, Beal has identified errors in Einstein’s calculations which invalidate his conclusions.

"Despite the mystique around Einstein and relativity there is no complicated physics in this paper and the mathematical errors identified are at the level of simple algebra. Whilst many authors have discussed the implications of Einstein’s theory, which are complex, they have not identified the simple errors in his calculations which are fatal to his analysis."

https://anbeal.co.uk/relativity.html

Online lecture (available 2 March 2024)

http://youtube.naturalphilosophy.org/

[crawler]

Special Relativity and the Lorentz Equations: errors in Einstein’s 1905 paper

Taken from the SIS website:

https://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/2024/ ... 905-paper/

"The paper in the title has just been published in Physics Essays 37, January 2024, Alasdair Beal .. ISSN 0836-1398 [print] and 2371-2236 [online].

"Special Relativity and the Lorentz Equations: Errors in Einstein’s 1905 paper. In 1905 Einstein presented his Special Theory of Relativity and claimed to prove that the Lorentz Transformation equations and time dilation of moving clocks can be deduced from it. In a new paper in Physis Essays 37.1, March 2024, Beal has identified errors in Einstein’s calculations which invalidate his conclusions.

"Despite the mystique around Einstein and relativity there is no complicated physics in this paper and the mathematical errors identified are at the level of simple algebra. Whilst many authors have discussed the implications of Einstein’s theory, which are complex, they have not identified the simple errors in his calculations which are fatal to his analysis."

https://anbeal.co.uk/relativity.html

Online lecture (available 2 March 2024)

http://youtube.naturalphilosophy.org/

Einsteinism is ridiculous on its face. It aint just the math.
Lorentz relativity is also wrong. And useless.
The Beal stuff like most others misses that Einstein stuffed up the Maxwell content in his STR. Einstein's STR duznt support Maxwell, it sinks Maxwell.

[Jaaanosik]

...
Einsteinism is ridiculous on its face. It aint just the math.
Lorentz relativity is also wrong. And useless.
The Beal stuff like most others misses that Einstein stuffed up the Maxwell content in his STR. Einstein's STR duznt support Maxwell, it sinks Maxwell.

What do you mean it sinks Maxwell.
The 1905 paper transforms Maxwell equations from frame to frame.

[crawler]

...
Einsteinism is ridiculous on its face. It aint just the math.
Lorentz relativity is also wrong. And useless.
The Beal stuff like most others misses that Einstein stuffed up the Maxwell content in his STR. Einstein's STR duznt support Maxwell, it sinks Maxwell.

What do you mean it sinks Maxwell.
The 1905 paper transforms Maxwell equations from frame to frame.

Einstein contradicts the faraday disc effect.

[Jaaanosik]

...
Einsteinism is ridiculous on its face. It aint just the math.
Lorentz relativity is also wrong. And useless.
The Beal stuff like most others misses that Einstein stuffed up the Maxwell content in his STR. Einstein's STR duznt support Maxwell, it sinks Maxwell.

What do you mean it sinks Maxwell.
The 1905 paper transforms Maxwell equations from frame to frame.

Einstein contradicts the faraday disc effect.

How?
Is there a paper on the subject?

[crawler]

...
Einsteinism is ridiculous on its face. It aint just the math.
Lorentz relativity is also wrong. And useless.
The Beal stuff like most others misses that Einstein stuffed up the Maxwell content in his STR. Einstein's STR duznt support Maxwell, it sinks Maxwell.

What do you mean it sinks Maxwell.
The 1905 paper transforms Maxwell equations from frame to frame.

Einstein contradicts the faraday disc effect.

How?
Is there a paper on the subject?

The Faraday Paradox tells us that the magnetic field does not rotate with a magnet.
Hence Einsteins 1905 wordage is dead.
But i cant remember which youtubes & which papers explain best.
Einsteinists as usual have i think come up with excuses (there is no limit to the possible excuses when they have a suite of unintelligible postulates etc).
A search for Faraday on the old forum shows a few interesting threads, but i have not had a close look today.

[crawler]

https://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie ... glisch.pdf

Translation into English
Chapter 2
Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity from the documentation of G.O. Mueller
On the Absolute Magnitude of the Special Theory of Relativity
A Documentary Thought Experiment on 95 Years of Criticism (1908-2003) with Proof of 3789 Critical Works
Text Version 2.1 - June 2004
Translator: Rothwell Bronrowan

Electromagnetism
F: Electromagnetism / Error No. 1

[crawler]

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... ueller#p49

[Jaaanosik]

https://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie ... glisch.pdf

Translation into English
Chapter 2
Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity from the documentation of G.O. Mueller
On the Absolute Magnitude of the Special Theory of Relativity
A Documentary Thought Experiment on 95 Years of Criticism (1908-2003) with Proof of 3789 Critical Works
Text Version 2.1 - June 2004
Translator: Rothwell Bronrowan

Electromagnetism
F: Electromagnetism / Error No. 1

I do not see the experiment that supports the error claim.
Which one?

[crawler]

https://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie ... glisch.pdf

Translation into English
Chapter 2
Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity from the documentation of G.O. Mueller
On the Absolute Magnitude of the Special Theory of Relativity
A Documentary Thought Experiment on 95 Years of Criticism (1908-2003) with Proof of 3789 Critical Works
Text Version 2.1 - June 2004
Translator: Rothwell Bronrowan

Electromagnetism
F: Electromagnetism / Error No. 1

I do not see the experiment that supports the error claim.
Which one?

Every (Faraday Paradox) experiment on youtube that shows a voltage for a Faraday Disc when the magnet is co-rotating with the disc confirms that the voltage is not due to relative motion, which sinks STR.

F: Electromagnetism / Error No. 3
The STR was developed without any knowledge of unipolar induction, which is an induction without relative motion between field and conductor
It is true that Albert Einstein mentions in AE 1905 (p. 910) "unipolar machines", but he does not treat the fundamental findings of unipolar induction. - Unipolar induction has been known since Faraday. This effect has been closely examined since the end of the 19th century, and since 1905 it has become increasingly important as conclusive experimental proof against the validity of the principle of relativity of the STR. As a result, unipolar induction has never been a subject of discussion in the presentations of the relativists.
The experiment on unipolar induction has two different designs: (A) a round bar magnet that can rotate on its longitudinal axis, and a wire loop attached to the bar magnet at two different points (both ends) with sliding contacts; (B) the wire loop is affixed to the bar magnet.
If, in the setup (A), the magnet is rotated once (relative to the laboratory table) and another time the wire loop, i.e. two relative motion whose relativity is completely identical, the location of the electromotive force is different. With this the complete symmetry of the processes is broken.
If the rotation takes place in setup (B), in which the whole (magnet and wire loop) exists as a single moving part, a current is induced. In other words, an induction without relative motion between magnet and conductor, or if one wishes to assume a relative motion, then
with respect to the ether or to space. The induction without relative motion is thus evidence of absolute motion or of relative motion with respect to the ether (medium, space), depending on one's interpretation. The relativists may choose which of the two should disprove their theory..........

[Jaaanosik]

The Special Relativity explains physics from inertial reference frame point of view.
If we place an origin of IRF into the middle of the induction wheel then we conclude the particles in the outer edge of wheel have different velocity compared to the particles closer to the center.
Applying the relativity math gymnastics can explain the induction.

Disclaimer: I hold a worldview there is a preferred reference frame.
I have some ideas how to show it, maybe slowly with time I'll present it here.

[Jaaanosik]

The electromagnetism of moving particles is understood and it is good to know how it works:




The EM fields are velocity dependent. That is very important factor.
Just think what happens when the particle is accelerating.

[Jaaanosik]

This is from another text book:

The velocity changes the shape of the electric field and the magnetic field also.
The magnetic field is flatter ellipsoid and the B increases with the acceleration.
This is where the charge particle spin effect comes from.