Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
Einstein and Feynman Teach the Same Lie

Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
Yeah, how fortunate that the village idiot Pentcho is here to enlighten us.

Pentcho Valev
Feynman is lying again:Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
Richard Feynman: "Now if all moving clocks run slower, if no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate, we shall just have to say, in a certain sense, that time itself appears to be slower in a space ship. All the phenomena there  the man's pulse rate, his thought processes, the time he takes to light a cigar, how long it takes to grow up and get old  all these things must be slowed down in the same proportion, because he cannot tell he is moving." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Is it true that "no way of measuring time gives anything but a slower rate"? Of course not  according to special relativity, measurements performed by the traveler himself give a FASTER rate:
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
"The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] ...the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/TwinParadox
Who taught Richard Feynman to lie? His teacher Albert Einstein of course. This particular lie ("moving clocks run slower") was devised in 1905:
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 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." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
Bad, bad Richard Feynman .Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev
Einstein was a powerful doublethinker. He was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction, without any hesitation. So in 1911 he explained that the turningaround acceleration ("sudden change of direction") is immaterial with respect to the clock (twin) paradox:Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.e ... trans/368
In 1918 the turningaround acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial and produced a miraculous HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive xaxis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive xaxis 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 xaxis 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." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Feynman was a much weaker doublethinker than his divine teacher Albert. In his interpretation of the twin paradox he was not doublethinker at all  he just chose "turningaround acceleration is crucial", presented it in a muddled way, and ignored "turningaround acceleration is immaterial":
Richard Feynman: "The twin paradox. To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous socalled "paradox" of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul's clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter's point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mumesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a "paradox" only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, "Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can't we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet." But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship  the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on  while Peter felt nothing. So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html
Unlike Feynman, most Einsteinians choose "turningaround acceleration is immaterial" (this scenario is easier to teach) and ignore "turningaround acceleration is crucial":
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... hilosophy/
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoralholding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/a ... dMore.html
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained." http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/ ... ty2010.pdf
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion." http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev
In my previous posting I wrote this:Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
Einstein was a powerful doublethinker. He was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction, without any hesitation. So in 1911 he explained that the turningaround acceleration ("sudden change of direction") is immaterial with respect to the clock (twin) paradox:
Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.e ... trans/368
In 1918 the turningaround acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial and produced a miraculous HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive xaxis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive xaxis 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 xaxis 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."
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Feynman was a much weaker doublethinker than his divine teacher Albert. In his interpretation of the twin paradox he was not doublethinker at all  he just chose "turningaround acceleration is crucial", presented it in a muddled way, and ignored "turningaround acceleration is immaterial":
Richard Feynman: "The twin paradox. To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous socalled "paradox" of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul's clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter's point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mumesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a "paradox" only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, "Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can't we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet." But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship  the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on  while Peter felt nothing. So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html
[END OF SELFQUOTATION]
Actually I was wrong about Feynman. He does teach doublethink here, quite blatantly, and fatally damages the rationality of his students/readers. In the text above he claims that the turningaround acceleration is crucial but the next text should convince his victims that the turningaround acceleration is immaterial:
Richard Feynman: "When we discussed the fact that moving muons live longer, we used as an example their straightline motion in the atmosphere. But we can also make muons in a laboratory and cause them to go in a curve with a magnet, and even under this accelerated motion, they last exactly as much longer as they do when they are moving in a straight line. Although no one has arranged an experiment explicitly so that we can get rid of the paradox, one could compare a muon which is left standing with one that had gone around a complete circle, and it would surely be found that the one that went around the circle lasted longer. Although we have not actually carried out an experiment using a complete circle, it is really not necessary, of course, because everything fits together all right. This may not satisfy those who insist that every single fact be demonstrated directly, but we confidently predict the result of the experiment in which Paul goes in a complete circle."
Pentcho Valev

 Joined: December 25th, 2016, 4:32 pm
Thanks Pentcho Valev, yes Feynman is in a bit of a pickle here.Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
The straight line explanation of time dillation is easy to visualise by geometry, we have all seen it thousands of times. The problem is that this argument is symmetric, so it doesn't work.
It may be that acceleration changes something, it adds energy to the traveller. Energy difference is a crucial element of the later general theory GTR, in fact you can look at it as time dilation come from the energy difference in a gravity field. But it can also be just kinetic energy difference, we don't care where this difference comes from. The curious thing is that kinetic energy difference can be used in the same way, the same amount, to match the time dillation for the twin experient. So maybe there is something in it? we need better experiemnts.

roger
>>The straight line explanation of time dillation is easy to visualise by geometry, we have all seen it thousands of times. The problem is that this argument is symmetric, so it doesn't work.Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
a more fundamental problem is that those who I have talked to and claim belief in special relativity; some say its symmetric and others say its asymmetric i.e. difference in opinion about relativity, and when we check back with Einstein to try to get clarity, we find none.

 Joined: December 25th, 2016, 4:32 pm
It was actually me who wrote the above piece, but the sender was inadvertently defauted to Anonymous:Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
Thanks Pentcho Valev, yes Feynman is in a bit of a pickle here.
The straight line explanation of time dillation is easy to visualise by geometry, we have all seen it thousands of times. The problem is that this argument is symmetric, so it doesn't work.
It may be that acceleration changes something, it adds energy to the traveller. Energy difference is a crucial element of the later general theory GTR, in fact you can look at it as time dilation come from the energy difference in a gravity field. But it can also be just kinetic energy difference, we don't care where this difference comes from. The curious thing is that kinetic energy difference can be used in the same way, the same amount, to match the time dillation for the twin experient. So maybe there is something in it? we need better experiemnts.
@Rog
Einstein hit upon something with STR, but STR is inherently inconsistent when asking questions such as the twin paradox. The GTR makes an abstraction from velocity to energy differences, whatever the source, that makes STR somewhat woolly.
If you apply GTR to the STR examples, then I come to the conclusion that there actually is an absolute frame of reference, i.e. relativity is not absolute, but a good approximation, but an approximation which is insufficient to solve the twin paradox by STR. But I think that probably Einstein brushed that little problem under the carpet in the glare of publicity. This has caused endless misunderstandings, even among the high priests.

roger
>>If you apply GTR to the STR examples, then I come to the conclusion that there actually is an absolute frame of reference,Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Does w = c  v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious.
Feynman teaches exactly the same lie but in a less blatant manner  he only suggests, without being as explicit as Einstein, that cu comes into conflict with the principle of relativity:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all."
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Pentcho Valev
yes, but most relativists deny that an absolute frame exists; so they seem to use an absolute frame at the same time as denying it exists (?)
>>>i.e. relativity is not absolute, but a good approximation,
the way they talk about things is that a theory has a range of applicability, and outside that range it doesn't work and therefore a "good approximation" in its range of applicability etc...; but when they talk of relativity and its range of applicability they never make it fully clear what that "is"
>>but an approximation which is insufficient to solve the twin paradox by STR.
the relativists don't seem to admit that, and always seem when they talk about the twin paradox being solved only mention STR (and not GTR) thus giving the impression it is solved in the context of STR alone
>>But I think that probably Einstein brushed that little problem under the carpet in the glare of publicity. This has caused endless misunderstandings, even among the high priests.
it was noticed by those you call the "high priests" that what Einstein said needed clarification, but he died before he could attend a meeting where he had been invited to explain himself; I pointed this out in one of my talks. So, apparently they decided to leave it as unclear.