Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> As currently defined, these three "mechanisms" in propositions or
> statements are:
>
> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick
> someone or a false or untrue argument.
> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>
> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a
> falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> to be better than it really is.
>
> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic,
> begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the
> conclusion, instead of supporting it.
>
> Some examples in relativity:
>
> 1) The derivation of m=E/c² in the 1905 paper "“Does the Inertia of a body
> depend upon its energy content?” is based on a circular argument. The
> paper generated controversies almost since the publication, being Max
> Planck who questioned this defect, by which the paper should have been
> never published.
>
> Literal quotes:
> "Let there be a stationary body in the system (x, y, z), and let its energy—
> referred to the system (x, y, z) be E₀. Let the energy of the body
> relative to the system (ξ, η, ζ) moving as above with the velocity v, be H₀."
> .........
> "If we call the energy of the body AFTER THE EMISSION OF LIGHT E₁ or H₁
> respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (ξ, η, ζ)
> respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain"
>
> E₀ = E₁ + L
> H₀ = H₁ + γ . L
>
> Here introduce the C.A. that E₁ = E₀ - L, at the beginning. It's being
> assumed that the energy of light L was drawn from the energy E₀ of the
> body at rest, before the light was turned on.
>
> With these two equations, Einstein derived that an ABSOLUTE change of
> energy happened between two RELATIVE sights of resting and moving
> frames of reference, getting:
>
> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 L/c² . v²
>
> To finally conclude:
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
> becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we
> are led to the more general conclusion that the mass of a body is a
> measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass
> changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10²⁰, the energy being measured
> in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
>
> The fallacy is behind the fact that he never introduced E₀ = M₀c², the
> energy at rest of the body with M₀ at rest, before the light was turned on.
> He, instead, used the energy E₀ and the C.A. that
>
> E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L
>
> and doing that is a sophism, PLUS Circular Argument. Besides, the fact
> that the result applies only for v << c is ignored since this paper.
>
> CONCLUSION: The results of the paper are WRONG, because the
> transformation of mass into energy is introduced (disguised) as
> hypothesis, which is precisely what is pretended to be demonstrated.

Not so. There is no circularity here. What he showed is that there is a
CHANGE in mass that is associated with the energy released in the light.
There is no other principle invoked other than conservation of energy. One
can then reasonably infer that there is energy content associated with
mass, and that taking the mass to zero would set that energy scale to zero
as well. You don’t have to assume the absolute scale in order to argue the
change.

Furthermore, you are one of many amateurs and hacks who make the mistake of
claiming that Einstein is presenting a PROOF of E=mc^2 in this paper. He is
not. There are no proofs of scientific hypotheses; there are only
experimental validations. What he showed is that IF special relativity is
correct (which would require experimental validation, which in turn has
happened since), then E=mc^2 follows as an equally likely hypothesis. No
proof offered. Just implication.

>
> 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
> precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
>
> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5
>
> The use of these formulae is fallacious, after it was introduced in Page 1
> the following conjectures/postulates:
>
> "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called
> the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also
> introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
> the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
> definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body."
>
> Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived" but,
> in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly forbidding any
> velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):
>
> V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)
>
> This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.

No, that’s not what is says at all, and again this is a common foolishness
conducted by amateurs and hacks, to argue that “if there is no speed higher
than c, then I should NEVER SEE in ANY expression a quantity that
numerically sums to a speed larger than c.” This is of course idiotic, and
points to the fact that the person looking at the algebraic expression
cannot ascribe any physical content to the terms in the expression.

In the expression v’ = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), the quantity v’ is the measurable
speed of an object as observed in the primed frame, where v is its
measurable velocity in the unprimed frame.

On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator
does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything in any frame. It is
purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.

There is no physics assertion anywhere that says you may not form an
algebraic combination of speeds that might exceed c, under any
circumstances.

Since the only things you’ve illustrated here is not logical fallacies in a
1911 paper but your own inability to parse simple physics ideas and then
blame that inability on someone else, why do you think all this verbiage
should be treated seriously?

>
> The fallacy alone should be enough to discard any further development
> in the paper as INVALID, remaining others derivations for geometrical
> Lorentz transforms like from Poincaré. Nothing else, if the case of
> discarding the ether would be continued by any other person.
>
>
> 3) On the 1911 paper, a SOPHISM is used to obtain gravitational blue
> shifting of light (1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the
> Propagation of Light").
>
> In "§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy", SOPHISTRY is used to derive
> the equation (1), by using systems S₁ and S₂ (at an height h):
>
> **** Literal quote:
>
> "We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from
> S₂ to S₁ ......... Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation
> arriving at S₁ does not possess the energy E₂, but a greater energy E₁,
> which is related to E₂; to a first approximation, by the equation:
>
> (1) E₁ = E₂ . (1 + v/c) = E₂ . (1 + g.h/c²)
>
> By our ASSUMPTION exactly the same relation holds if the same
> process takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is
> provided with a gravitational field. In this case we may replace
> g.h by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S₂, if the ARBITRARY
> CONSTANT of Φ in S₁ is set to zero. We then have the equation:
>
> (1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂ . /c²
>
> **** End of quote.
>
> This excerpt contain sophistry and fallacies, and pushes the reader to
> accept that energy from S₂ increments by falling down to S₁, which has
> a motion v = g.h/c relative to a reference K₀.
>
> Not only this, but using (without mention it, Planck's E = h.f), an equation
> (2a) is derived in "§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational
> Field"
>
> (2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
> 110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
> shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.
>
> CONCLUSION ON 3): The abundant use of sophistry, fallacies and
> gobbledygook in the 1911 paper is untenable, and these conclusions
> as well as the variable speed of light due to gravity should be discarded.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables