EINSTEINIANA: INTIMIDATED BY IDIOTIC LENGTH CONTRACTION

Clever Einsteinians have always known that the miraculous corollaries
of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - time dilation, length
contraction etc. - have converted Albert the Plagiarist into Divine
Albert and his "theory" into a money-spinner, but at the same have
produced dangerous absurdities: a long train can be trapped inside a
short tunnel, a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn, the bug is both
dead and alive etc.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"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....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Silly Einsteinians like Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley do not see the
danger and become famous by trying to find the physical meaning of the
absurdities. So the danger becomes even greater:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...ontraction.pdf
Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course
the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null
result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto
successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether,
a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable
drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the
turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in
textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its
structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis,
it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2
and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and
does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE
CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT
OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF
RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about
relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time
dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view
among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski
spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why
moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead,
that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "One then appeals to the relativity
principle again—the principle entails that these coordinated
contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of
velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial
isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those
encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that
rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the
two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an
explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around.
It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is
consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to
have the same speed in each inertial frame."

The cleverest Einsteinian, John Norton, is the only hypnotist in
Einstein criminal cult who has realized that the heresy coming from
Oxford University (Harvey Brown) is going to expose the most idiotic
aspects of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...hys/index.html
John Norton, 2004: "Neo-Lorentzians return again. A perennial topic of
debate is whether the physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) require some sort of physical explanation that in
turn requires some sort of state of rest such as Lorentz envisaged was
supplied by his ether."

But the cleverest Einsteinian John Norton is extremely clever and
would never contradict his brothers directly, e.g. by saying: "Harvey
Brown is wrong. The physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) do not require any sort of physical explanation".
Rather, John Norton is fighting Harvey Brown's heresy by introducing
efficient red herrings: Harvey Brown's terms are ambiguous and that is
the only problem:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...Relativity.pdf
John Norton: "In his Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a
Dynamical Perspective, Harvey Brown (2005) advocates a constructive
approach to spacetime theories. The idea is that spacetime theories
are essentially matter theories. The familiar spacetime geometries are
dependent on properties of matter and induced by them. For example, he
urges (pp. vii-viii) that “relativistic phenomena like length
contraction and time dilation are in the last analysis the result of
structural properties of the quantum theory of matter.” Elsewhere2 (p.
132) he describes the view “defended in this book” as “one is
committed to the idea that Lorentz contraction is the result of a
structural property of the forces responsible for the microstructure
of matter,” that The appropriate structure is Minkowski geometry
precisely because the laws of physics of the non-gravitational
interactions are Lorentz covariant. and apparently endorses the idea
that “these forces and structures are, indeed, actually responsible
for the phenomena, and, hence for space-time having the structure it
has.” There is an ambiguity in the use of the terms central to Brown’s
claim: “result of,” “because” and “responsible for.”....."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 25, 2:39*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Einsteinians have always known that the miraculous corollaries
of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - time dilation, length
contraction etc. - have converted Albert the Plagiarist into Divine
Albert and his "theory" into a money-spinner, but at the same have
produced dangerous absurdities: a long train can be trapped inside a
short tunnel, a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn, the bug is both
dead and alive etc.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"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....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Silly Einsteinians like Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley do not see the
danger and become famous by trying to find the physical meaning of the
absurdities. So the danger becomes even greater:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...gins_of_contra...
Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course
the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null
result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto
successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether,
a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable
drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the
turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in
textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its
structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis,
it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2
and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and
does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE
CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT
OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF
RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about
relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time
dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view
among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski
spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why
moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead,
that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "One then appeals to the relativity
principle again—the principle entails that these coordinated
contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of
velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial
isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those
encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that
rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the
two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an
explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around.
It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is
consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to
have the same speed in each inertial frame."

The cleverest Einsteinian, John Norton, is the only hypnotist in
Einstein criminal cult who has realized that the heresy coming from
Oxford University (Harvey Brown) is going to expose the most idiotic
aspects of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...hys/index.html
John Norton, 2004: "Neo-Lorentzians return again. A perennial topic of
debate is whether the physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) require some sort of physical explanation that in
turn requires some sort of state of rest such as Lorentz envisaged was
supplied by his ether."

But the cleverest Einsteinian John Norton is extremely clever and
would never contradict his brothers directly, e.g. by saying: "Harvey
Brown is wrong. The physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) do not require any sort of physical explanation".
Rather, John Norton is fighting Harvey Brown's heresy by introducing
efficient red herrings: Harvey Brown's terms are ambiguous and that is
the only problem:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...Relativity.pdf
John Norton: "In his Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a
Dynamical Perspective, Harvey Brown (2005) advocates a constructive
approach to spacetime theories. The idea is that spacetime theories
are essentially matter theories. The familiar spacetime geometries are
dependent on properties of matter and induced by them. For example, he
urges (pp. vii-viii) that “relativistic phenomena like length
contraction and time dilation are in the last analysis the result of
structural properties of the quantum theory of matter.” Elsewhere2 (p.
132) he describes the view “defended in this book” as “one is
committed to the idea that Lorentz contraction is the result of a
structural property of the forces responsible for the microstructure
of matter,” that The appropriate structure is Minkowski geometry
precisely because the laws of physics of the non-gravitational
interactions are Lorentz covariant. and apparently endorses the idea
that “these forces and structures are, indeed, actually responsible
for the phenomena, and, hence for space-time having the structure it
has.” There is an ambiguity in the use of the terms central to Brown’s
claim: “result of,” “because” and “responsible for.”....."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: I can't and won't reply to the cites you provided, but there
is a dire problem.

Even if we disagree with Einstein's proposal for a 'how', we are still
left with a measurement. In this case it doesn't matter whether it is
relatively subjective or objective. All that matters here is a
constancy of the observer to observe.

If we look at time dilation, alone, there is no resolvability. There
is another same mathematical gamma factor (even though I don't rely on
math for logic). It is the ability to exist as a form of whatever
lump of energy or matter that has the internal sensitivity to the
speed of light. It cannot hold the same shape at relativistic
speeds. The bonds cannot function as they do at slower speeds.

The big clue here is that clocks do slow down with a velocity within
the background energy flow. Something happened to their structure to
alter how they 'tick' (rate). What do you suppose it could be? It
gets into the internal, doesn't it?

So don't just say that you don't believe or can't believe that a
structure cannot be deformed. If you hope to be considered as a would-
be physicist, you have to keep your mind open because we don't know
everything and there is always new discovery that calls for our
itinerant explanation. But it has to at least make a sense. You, so
far, have not.

xxein wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:39 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Clever Einsteinians have always known that the miraculous corollaries
of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - time dilation, length
contraction etc. - have converted Albert the Plagiarist into Divine
Albert and his "theory" into a money-spinner, but at the same have
produced dangerous absurdities: a long train can be trapped inside a
short tunnel, a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn, the bug is both
dead and alive etc.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"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....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Silly Einsteinians like Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley do not see the
danger and become famous by trying to find the physical meaning of the
absurdities. So the danger becomes even greater:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...gins_of_contra...
Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course
the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null
result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto
successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether,
a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable
drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the
turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in
textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its
structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis,
it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2
and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and
does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE
CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT
OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF
RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about
relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time
dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view
among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski
spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why
moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead,
that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "One then appeals to the relativity
principle again—the principle entails that these coordinated
contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of
velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial
isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those
encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that
rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the
two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an
explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around.
It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is
consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to
have the same speed in each inertial frame."

The cleverest Einsteinian, John Norton, is the only hypnotist in
Einstein criminal cult who has realized that the heresy coming from
Oxford University (Harvey Brown) is going to expose the most idiotic
aspects of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...hys/index.html
John Norton, 2004: "Neo-Lorentzians return again. A perennial topic of
debate is whether the physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) require some sort of physical explanation that in
turn requires some sort of state of rest such as Lorentz envisaged was
supplied by his ether."

But the cleverest Einsteinian John Norton is extremely clever and
would never contradict his brothers directly, e.g. by saying: "Harvey
Brown is wrong. The physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) do not require any sort of physical explanation".
Rather, John Norton is fighting Harvey Brown's heresy by introducing
efficient red herrings: Harvey Brown's terms are ambiguous and that is
the only problem:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...Relativity.pdf
John Norton: "In his Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a
Dynamical Perspective, Harvey Brown (2005) advocates a constructive
approach to spacetime theories. The idea is that spacetime theories
are essentially matter theories. The familiar spacetime geometries are
dependent on properties of matter and induced by them. For example, he
urges (pp. vii-viii) that “relativistic phenomena like length
contraction and time dilation are in the last analysis the result of
structural properties of the quantum theory of matter.” Elsewhere2 (p.
132) he describes the view “defended in this book” as “one is
committed to the idea that Lorentz contraction is the result of a
structural property of the forces responsible for the microstructure
of matter,” that The appropriate structure is Minkowski geometry
precisely because the laws of physics of the non-gravitational
interactions are Lorentz covariant. and apparently endorses the idea
that “these forces and structures are, indeed, actually responsible
for the phenomena, and, hence for space-time having the structure it
has.” There is an ambiguity in the use of the terms central to Brown’s
claim: “result of,” “because” and “responsible for.”....."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: I can't and won't reply to the cites you provided, but there
is a dire problem.

Even if we disagree with Einstein's proposal for a 'how', we are still
left with a measurement. In this case it doesn't matter whether it is
relatively subjective or objective. All that matters here is a
constancy of the observer to observe.

If we look at time dilation, alone, there is no resolvability. There
is another same mathematical gamma factor (even though I don't rely on
math for logic). It is the ability to exist as a form of whatever
lump of energy or matter that has the internal sensitivity to the
speed of light. It cannot hold the same shape at relativistic
speeds. The bonds cannot function as they do at slower speeds.

The big clue here is that clocks do slow down with a velocity within
the background energy flow. Something happened to their structure to
alter how they 'tick' (rate). What do you suppose it could be? It
gets into the internal, doesn't it?

So don't just say that you don't believe or can't believe that a
structure cannot be deformed. If you hope to be considered as a would-
be physicist, you have to keep your mind open because we don't know
everything and there is always new discovery that calls for our
itinerant explanation. But it has to at least make a sense. You, so
far, have not.

Well, I recommend the links he supplies. Usually they are VERY
interesting viewpoints.
The last one I read was announced as "return of the neo-Lorentzians".

Quite an interesting read, where the comparison was made between the
Relativist-Minkowski viewpoint -"time and space shrinks and shut up" and
de Lorentzian view : "the background does something to matter and
clocks, which needs to be explored and explained". Probably the latter
now becomes more intresting wrt becoming funding.

Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.