EINSTEIN'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
Lee Smolin: The consequences of Einstein's 1905 postulates are "dead wrong" and "a logical and metaphysical dead end":
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
Lee Smolin: Both Einstein's 1905 postulates and their consequences "hold remarkably well":
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.
"Smolin was named as #21 on Foreign Policy Magazine's list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals. He is also one of many physicists dubbed the "New Einstein" by the media":
EINSTEIN'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
It IS nonsense - the fundamental nonsense of Einstein's relativity. If fact, the speed of light relative to an observer/receiver IS increased or decreased if that observer/receiver moves towards or away from a light beam. The Albert Einstein Institute admits that (implicitly):
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
(...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary receiver is:
c = d/t
where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is the time until pulse and (stationary) receiver meet up. For the moving receiver, "the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened". This means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:
c' = d/t' = c + v
where t' is the time until pulse and moving receiver meet up (tt') and v is the speed of the receiver relative to the source.
The speed of the pulses (relative to the receiver) does vary with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
EINSTEIN'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD
It follows from Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."
It is easy to see that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, can produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. According to Einstein's theory, length contraction consumes no work - Einsteinians even teach that it is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:
Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."
|All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 SpaceBanter.com. Space photos on this page are credited to NASA and ESA