Einstein's Relativity or How Idiotic Science Can Get

All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are idiotic. One of them, length contraction, implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
John Baez: "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. [...] 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."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize 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 ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - the more madness in the world, the better.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required - Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

Paralyzing absurdity in Einstein schizophrenic world:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

That is, all along, the traveling twin observes himself aging faster than his stationary brother, but, as the traveling twin turns around for a very brief period, "enough strangeness occurs" and his distant stationary brother suddenly gets very old and dies. And, although the turnaround is crucial, it can be ignored in the calculations. Insane isn't it?

The paradox of the twin paradox is that everybody, even Einsteinians, know that actually it is an absurdity, and yet, for more than a century, no convincing proof of the absurdity has been found (reductio ad absurdum does not seem to work). The secret behind all those countless failures can be revealed by analyzing the following text:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

In the traditional twin paradox scenario "your clock is checked against two of mine" is possible while "my clock is checked against two of yours" is implicitly forbidden - the traveling twin is simply not allowed to have two (or more) clocks and to check the stationary twin's clock against them. Accordingly, in the traditional twin paradox scenario, only the youthfulness of the traveling twin can be demonstrated. The youthfulness of the stationary twin is there (so the case is absurd) but cannot be demonstrated because the essential tool - more than one clock possessed by the traveling twin - is implicitly forbidden.

To make the long story short:

A train is at rest and a clock is moving to and fro between two (stationary) clocks situated at the front and back ends of the train. The speed of the moving clock is constant except for the turn-arounds where the clock suffers sharp acceleration. This is the traditional relativistic scenario - Einstein's relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slower than (lags behind) the two stationary clocks on the train.

In a complementary scenario (which is missing in the relativistic literature), the single clock is on the ground, at rest, but the train is moving to and fro, at constant speed, so that the stationary clock on the ground effectively commutes between the front and back ends of the train. Will the clock on the ground run slower or faster than the two clocks on the moving train? What does relativity say?

Pentcho Valev