EINSTEIN'S THEORY: NOT EVEN ABSURD

The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's
theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics
of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a moving clock is slowed
down and a moving rod is shrunk in the direction of its motion. If I
am an inertial observer, I will find the effect to come about for the
clocks and rods of a spaceship moving past at rapid speed. But if that
spaceship is moving inertially, then, by the principle of relativity,
the spaceship's observer must find the same thing for my clocks and
rods. Relative to that observer, my clocks and rods move past at great
speed. So that observer would find my clocks to be slowed and my rods
to be shrunk in the direction of my motion. Each finds the other's
clocks slowed and rods shrunk. How can both be possible? Is there an
inconsistency in the theory? If I am bigger than you, then you must be
smaller than me. You cannot also be bigger than me. That's the
problem. that each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk is
troubling. But is it a real paradox in the sense of there being a
logical contradiction? If I walk away from you, simple perspective
effects make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller.
I judge you to grow smaller; and you judge me to grow smaller. No one
should think that this is a paradox. That perspectival effect should
not worry anyone. The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show
that the relativistic effects are more serious than this simple
perspectival effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction;
and we should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory. (...)
The car can only be said to have been fully enclosed in the garage if
both doors were shut at the same time. There is no observer
independent fact of the matter as to timing of these events. Therefore
there is no observer independent fact as to whether the car was ever
fully enclosed in the garage."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. (...) 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."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
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."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity
requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond
its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 28, 1:38*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's
theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics
of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/Reciprocity/...
John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a moving clock is slowed
down and a moving rod is shrunk in the direction of its motion. If I
am an inertial observer, I will find the effect to come about for the
clocks and rods of a spaceship moving past at rapid speed. But if that
spaceship is moving inertially, then, by the principle of relativity,
the spaceship's observer must find the same thing for my clocks and
rods. Relative to that observer, my clocks and rods move past at great
speed. So that observer would find my clocks to be slowed and my rods
to be shrunk in the direction of my motion. Each finds the other's
clocks slowed and rods shrunk. How can both be possible? Is there an
inconsistency in the theory? If I am bigger than you, then you must be
smaller than me. You cannot also be bigger than me. That's the
problem. that each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk is
troubling. But is it a real paradox in the sense of there being a
logical contradiction? If I walk away from you, simple perspective
effects make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller.
I judge you to grow smaller; and you judge me to grow smaller. No one
should think that this is a paradox. That perspectival effect should
not worry anyone. The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show
that the relativistic effects are more serious than this simple
perspectival effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction;
and we should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory. (...)
The car can only be said to have been fully enclosed in the garage if
both doors were shut at the same time. There is no observer
independent fact of the matter as to timing of these events. Therefore
there is no observer independent fact as to whether the car was ever
fully enclosed in the garage."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. (...) 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."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
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."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity
requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond
its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

Einsteiniana's mavericks: Special relativity's "epistemological and
ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified,
false, perhaps even illogical":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special
Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are
now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even
illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely
observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also
observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian
theory."

Which one of special relativity's two postulates is "questionable,
unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical"? This is a grand secret
between Einsteiniana's mavericks but the reference to an
"observationally superior" ether theory suggests that the principle of
relativity is under attack. And of all the Einsteinians all over the
world not one could think of a reason why brothers mavericks should
not attack the principle of relativity and revitalize the ether
theory. What is absolutely forbidden in Einsteiniana is to attack the
principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009: "The objective of the
conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical
elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT);
the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those
interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially
in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The
organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in
investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure
of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural,
ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution
and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to
a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review
the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the
Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and
philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted
relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations
associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical
investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian
(Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-
type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the
theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 29, 5:30*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana's mavericks: Special relativity's "epistemological and
ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified,
false, perhaps even illogical":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim...-Contemporary-...
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special
Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are
now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even
illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely
observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also
observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian
theory."

Which one of special relativity's two postulates is "questionable,
unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical"? This is a grand secret
between Einsteiniana's mavericks but the reference to an
"observationally superior" ether theory suggests that the principle of
relativity is under attack. And of all the Einsteinians all over the
world not one could think of a reason why brothers mavericks should
not attack the principle of relativity and revitalize the ether
theory. What is absolutely forbidden in Einsteiniana is to attack the
principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009: "The objective of the
conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical
elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT);
the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those
interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially
in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The
organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in
investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure
of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural,
ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution
and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to
a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review
the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the
Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and
philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted
relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations
associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical
investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian
(Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-
type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the
theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

On Jan 28, 3:38*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's
theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics
of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/Reciprocity/...
John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a moving clock is slowed
down and a moving rod is shrunk in the direction of its motion. If I
am an inertial observer, I will find the effect to come about for the
clocks and rods of a spaceship moving past at rapid speed. But if that
spaceship is moving inertially, then, by the principle of relativity,
the spaceship's observer must find the same thing for my clocks and
rods. Relative to that observer, my clocks and rods move past at great
speed. So that observer would find my clocks to be slowed and my rods
to be shrunk in the direction of my motion. Each finds the other's
clocks slowed and rods shrunk. How can both be possible? Is there an
inconsistency in the theory? If I am bigger than you, then you must be
smaller than me. You cannot also be bigger than me. That's the
problem. that each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk is
troubling. But is it a real paradox in the sense of there being a
logical contradiction? If I walk away from you, simple perspective
effects make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller.
I judge you to grow smaller; and you judge me to grow smaller. No one
should think that this is a paradox. That perspectival effect should
not worry anyone. The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show
that the relativistic effects are more serious than this simple
perspectival effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction;
and we should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory. (...)
The car can only be said to have been fully enclosed in the garage if
both doors were shut at the same time. There is no observer
independent fact of the matter as to timing of these events. Therefore
there is no observer independent fact as to whether the car was ever
fully enclosed in the garage."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. (...) 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."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
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."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity
requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond
its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev


Supposedly to an observer that's moving along at the velocity of c, is
where everything else becomes 2D (aka "flatland").

Of course this means that all other forces (including gravity) must
also limit their propagation at c.

Perhaps while traveling at c, those other forces get nullified and
become harmless.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”