Strange as it may sound today, the contemporaries of the great sly and deceiver spoke loudly about the idiocy of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. This especially applies, of course, to practitioners, be they physicists or mathematicians, the Nikola Tesla, whose works, thanks to the above-mentioned theory, fell into the official "long box", although discoveries were used from 1943 in the tail and in the mane, to the respected 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, better known in the world as Ernest Rutherford, the father of nuclear physics and a Nobel laureate in chemistry, who could not find other words to describe the theory of relativity other than "nonsense."
It is significant in this respect that even under the pressure of the entire Khazar kagal, the then Nobel Committee did not give Einstein a prize for his wonderful nonsense, although today it is famous for awarding it to scoundrels of all stripes, be it Kissinger, Carter, mother Teresa, Gorbachev, Arafat, Peres, Gore, Obama and others like them.
I would like to dwell on one very illustrative example of the attitude of scientists (and "scientists") and the public (and "public") to the essence of this very theory. My example is called Professor Herbert Dingle (Herbert Dingle). How! You don't know anything about him? Strange … For 50 years of his life, he was a leading expert on the theory of relativity, actively discussing it with Einstein, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Schrödinger, Born and Bridgman. In 1922 he wrote the book Relativity for All, which immediately became one of the first textbooks on theory. He wrote the second book 20 years later. It was called "The Special Theory of Relativity" and for a long time also served as a textbook on this subject in the universities of England and the United States. Google yourself if you're interested.
Dingle became so famous that when Einstein did die in 1955, it was Dingle who was invited to broadcast in memory of the great liar on the BBC.
In 1959, Professor Dingle finally noticed that something was wrong with the theory of relativity. And something that put a big and fat cross on the whole theory. After all, being a scientist, not a “scientist,” the professor spent another 13 years of his life trying to resolve the paradox he discovered. Unable to do this alone, he sent out an article with a question to all the scientific journals of the time. None of them printed it. Then in 1972 Dingle published a book called Science at a Crossroads. In it, he explained that he decided to publish only because all other media denied him the right to present undeniable proof of the fallacy of the theory of relativity …
Readers, whose conscious childhood fell on the second half of the 70s, probably remember with what interest many of us watched all the episodes of the program "Obvious - Incredible". I remember very well how Kapitsa discussed the theory of relativity with another guest. Of course, not her, but how difficult she is for an ordinary person to understand. The guest cited as an example of some of our next prodigy, who not only understood her, but could explain (!) In just a few minutes. They even wanted to make a film about the boy, the guest told, and the director asked if he could really explain it to him, what the boy got out of the situation by asking: "Will you understand?" Kapitsa, I remember, laughed knowingly …
And here is how Albert Einstein himself explained his theory, and not in a bathhouse or in an Amsterdam coffee shop, but during an honorary speech at Princeton University (I quote as close as possible to the original):
“What we mean by relative motion, in a general sense, is perfectly clear to everyone. If we think of a carriage moving along the street, we know that we can speak of the carriage as motionless and the street as moving in the same way as about a carriage moving and the street is motionless. This, however, is a very specific part of the ideas that make up the principle of Relativity."
Promotional video:
If Winnie the Pooh told Piglet or Gena Cheburashka, everyone would have laughed and forgot. But this was said by the "genius of science", so the listeners and spectators in the audience had to keep a serious face. Meanwhile, the 70s have passed, the "Obvious - the incredible" was closed, Kapitsa (neither one nor the other) is gone, but the mystery surrounding the "incomprehensible genius" of the theory has also disappeared. Let me remind you what two postulates it boils down to, if expressed in a language that Einstein himself understood. Firstly, as you have already heard, the movement of one object relative to another is relative, that is, it is impossible (!) To establish which of them is actually moving and which is standing still. Secondly, the faster an object moves, the more time slows down for it. The rest of the postulates are derivatives of these two. And it was to them that Professor Dingle finally drew attention, who,scratching the back of his head, in the aforementioned book he wrote literally the following:
“According to this theory, if you have two absolutely identical clocks, A and B, and the first move relative to the second, they must work at different speeds … some will lag behind others. However, this theory implies that you cannot determine which of the two clocks are "moving"; it is equally true to assume that A is at rest while B is moving, or that A is moving while B is at rest. This raises the question: how, based on theory, determine which of the clocks are lagging behind? Until this question is answered, the theory inevitably states that A lags behind B, and B lags behind A … Superintelligence is not required to see the impossibility of what is happening. A theory that requires the impossible cannot be correct, and strict scientific character therefore presupposes either an answer to the question posed, or a conclusion thatthat the theory is false. However, as I said, more than 13 years of constant effort have not yielded any answer.”
If for some reason you did not follow the thought of the esteemed professor, here is an even more vivid example for you, known as the twins paradox, which I don’t know how it is now, but earlier often slipped into science fiction books, albeit in half. The paradox is outrageously simple: there were twins, say, Vova and Dima. Vova flew into space, and Dima remained on the mortal Earth. Vova flew very quickly, and for him, according to the theory of old man Albert, time slowed down relative to his earthly Dima. Science fiction writers usually reached this point, and Vova in their books and films returned to his brother when he was already an old goner. However, you and I have already grasped the theory of relativity and we know that at the same time when Vova was quickly flying away from Dima, Dima was flying away from Vova with exactly the same speed. Therefore, he, too, was aging more slowly than Vova. As a result, it should have turned out that Vova returned to exactly the same Dima as he had left him. But wait, if nothing has changed at all, what's the catch of the theory?..
Actually, in this place it would be possible to put a full stop, but I will nevertheless continue my thought for those who, perhaps, for the first time come across this information. Here's how the importance of Einstein's theory of relativity is described in The World Heritage Encyclopedia:
“Einstein's special theory of relativity in the 1905 edition allows for a more elegant and intuitive explanation of the zero result in the Michelson-Morley experiment. With the joint motion of the coordinate system, the zero result is obvious, since the device can be considered at rest in accordance with the principle of relativity, due to which the propagation time of the ray turns out to be the same Special theory of relativity is a generally accepted solution to all negative measurements of the motion of the ether (or isotropy of the speed of light), including zero Michelson-Morley result”.
Again, if you're curious, Google Michelson-Morley yourself. I will only explain here that before the appearance of the theory of relativity, many (if not all) scientists believed that the space around us was completely and completely penetrated by a substance thinner than air, called ether. It was the ether that Tesla used as a natural conductor of electricity. It was the ether that Mendeleev placed in the zero cell of his table, calling it Newtonium. Today, there are no zero cells, no Newton, and only TV news anchors go on the air. What happened? And a terrible thing happened - for the dogmas of the religion called today "science". The experiments of Michelson-Morley (as well as Sagnac and many other practicing researchers) suddenly showed "zero result": the ether did not move. But this was very strange, because by the end of the 19th century, if not all,then most of the "educated" humanity "knew" that the Earth revolves around itself and rushes around the Sun even faster, etc. The zero result could be interpreted in only two ways: either there is no ether, or … The Earth stands still.
And a final note. Of course, if Einstein had not been born, the kagal would have appointed some other narrow-minded C grade student in his place and would have found him a Serbian wife who would write all sorts of scientific works for him. Albert's guilt before humanity is perhaps that he was a convinced Zionist and at the same time admired the Stalinist USSR. Without exception, all the principles, collected under the roof of both theories of relativity, were put forward by unfortunate scientists long before him. Here is a short list of them:
The curvature of space was described by Riemann (1826-1866)
The fourth dimension was introduced into geometry to create a new concept of space-time by Minkowski (1864-1906)
The reduction of objects in proportion to their speed was described by Fitzgerald (1851-1901)
The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, regardless of the object associated with it, was described by Lorentz (1853-1928)
Perhaps Einstein was the first to point out the impossibility of determining the speed of the earth's movement in the ether? No, this was done by the same Lorentz and Poincaré (1854-1912).
Maybe Einstein coined the term "relativity"? Alas, here too the unfit Poincaré was ahead of him.
The same Poincaré who said before Einstein that nothing is faster than the speed of light.
But what about the story with the deceleration of a clock moving in space? Sir Joseph Larmor (1857-1942) said this earlier.
Professor W. C. spoke about a substance that should wrinkle in a curved space. Clifford in 1870 … 9 years before the birth of our genius.
But what about the symbolic formula E = mc², which has become a symbol of the theory of relativity, and later the terrible nuclear energy? In 1881, a certain J. J. Thompson wrote it down as E = ¾mc² when describing a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. In 1900, Poincaré, a simpleton, suggested too loudly that electromagnetic energy can have a density of mass, correlated with the density of energy by the formula E = mc², where E is energy and m is mass …
Well, now seems to be enough. When we reach our hands again, let's speculate about why the kagal was so afraid not only of discovering the immobility of the Earth, but also of the presence of ether.
Einstein and Ben Gurion.
