GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN'S ABSURDITIES

After a century of merciless destruction of human rationality
(scientists have been forced to foolishly travel in time, trap long
trains inside short tunnels etc.), now the postscientific world is
intent on resolving the famous twin paradox:

http://twinparadox.net/
An Open Letter to the Physics Community - 11/14/10
The Twin Paradox
"2011 is the centennial anniversary of the publication of Paul
Langevin's famous paper "On Space and Time" in which he introduced,
what became popularly known, as the Twin Paradox. This letter
discusses the results of a recent study of the Twin Paradox problem.
This NPA study concluded that, after 100 years of work on this famous
problem in special relativity, the Twin Paradox continues to be
unresolved. Our purpose in writing this letter is to request that a
specific, new course of action be undertaken to resolve this problem."

http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article768
jeudi 16 juin et vendredi 17 juin 2011 salle Klimt, 366A
Le paradoxe des jumeaux : interprétations en conflit
Thierry Grandou (Université de Nice), Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
(Université de Nice), Philippe Lombard (Irem de Lorraine), Jean-Pierre
Luminet (CNRS), Elie During (Université Paris Ouest - Nanterre),
Alexis de Saint-Ours (Université Paris-Diderot)

How can one "resolve" an absurdity? Consider an analogous situation in
Big Brother's world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Oceania's scientists have long ago advanced the fundamental postulate
2+2=5 and are now trying to resolve the following paradox:

3(2+2) = 3*5 = 15
3(2+2) = 3*2 + 3*2 = 6 + 6 = 12

Can the "paradox" be resolved? It can't of course. Oceania's
scientists can only get rid of the false postulate 2+2=5. Analogously,
scientists who do not want to live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world any longer will have to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (...) Any ray
of light moves in the "stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body. (...) From this there ensues the following peculiar
consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks
which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then
on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate allows
Einsteinians to trap arbitrarily long objects inside arbitrarily short
containers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search
Einsteinians trap long trains inside short tunnels

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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. 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
"Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! 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. Comment est-ce
possible?"

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
"La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans
déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une
illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est
plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être
contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par
contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche,
i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa
longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se
mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche.
Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-
même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas
une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les
deux cas)."

How can one "resolve" the absurdity? Relevant questions, e.g. "How
great is the force the trapped object applies to the closed doors of
the container?", sound silly. Any dispute between Einsteinians and
antirelativists unavoidably degenerates into equivocation, with silly
arguments coming from both sides.

The long-object-inside-short-container absurdity (the consequent)
CANNOT be resolved. The only reasonable approach consists in getting
rid of the antecedent, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
postulate.

Pentcho Valev

Logically, Einsteiniana's absurdities often have nothing to do with
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate or any other
tenet of Einstein's theory:

http://www.nature.com/news/2000/0007...s000720-9.html
Philip Ball: "The experiments that increase the speed of light above c
appear to pose a more serious challenge to relativity. Einstein's
theory implies that any object moving faster than c will be moving
backwards in time. As this limerick illustrates: "There was a young
lady named Bright, Whose speed was faster than light. She went out one
day, In a relative way, And returned the previous night." The
objection to this kind of time travel is based as much on logic as on
physics. What if Ms Bright had returned not on the previous night but
50 years earlier, and had assassinated one of her grandparents before
they had conceived her mother? Then Ms Bright could never have been
born in the first place. This so-called 'grandfather paradox'
demonstrates that faster-than-light travel is absurd. In short, it
would violate causality - the principle that all causes must precede
their effects."

Philip Ball, do you really believe that "Einstein's theory implies
that any object moving faster than c will be moving backwards in
time"? I am afraid Einstein's theory does not imply anything like
that. Yet ALL absurdities, even those logically unrelated to
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be "resolved"
as soon as this postulate is officially declared false. In fact,
Einstein did declare it false in 1954 (sometimes people get honest at
the end of their lives) but used enigmatic language that today's
postscientists are unable or unwilling to disentangle:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "And then, in June, Einstein
completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story:
Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special
relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red
Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes
a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as
wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each
problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
A second clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
New varying speed of light theories
Joao Magueijo
A third clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "In sharp contrast, the
constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term
"heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light
theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the
constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of
modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more
structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant
theories."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The farce of physics
Bryan Wallace
A fourth clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "Einstein's special
relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in
space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern
physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics
becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50282475...s-dans-loeuvre
A fifth clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION (Louis de Broglie): "Tout
d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait expulsée de la théorie de la
Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une "théorie du champ" où le
rayonnement était représenté par une répartition continue dans
l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment au cours du temps sans
qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les domaines spatiaux au sein
desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très petites régions
singulières où le champ serait très fortement concentré et qui
fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce caractère à la fois
continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait prendre une forme
très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ lumineux venait se
confondre avec un certain type de champ électromagnétique."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's priests defend Einstein's absurdities: Even if the
speed of light is variable, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is still
true, simply because Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
postulate is obsolete (believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):

http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=16963
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Mais l'inutile et depuis longtemps caduc «
second postulat » (celui de l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière)
garde encore une place de choix dans les exposés."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdona..._44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev

Pernicious "heresy" in Einsteinana:

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/15131
"Was Einstein wrong? The speed of light has slowed down since the Big
Bang, a team of Sydney researchers has conjectured. If true, the
findings rock the very foundations of some of our most sacred
scientific laws. The discovery was made by Paul Davies from Macquarie
University and Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from University of
New South Wales. Based on measurements of light that has travelled for
10 to 12 billion years to reach Earth from massive stellar objects
called quasars, the scientists argue that light speed, which clocks
300,000 kilometres a second, has been slowing down over time. They
have proposed several reasons for this, including the possibility that
the structure of the vacuum in space has changed. When light travels
through a medium other than a vacuum, such as a glass of water, it
slows down. If the vacuum of space is changing uniformly across the
universe, just as the universe is expanding uniformly, it could affect
the speed of light by slowing it, they say. So, do the findings mean
that the great cosmological constant should now be consigned to the
dusty annals of history? Not necessarily, say the scientists. It just
means Einstein's theory based on the speed light being constant might
no longer be the last word on the subject. This discovery implies that
faster-than-light travel, which is prohibited by the law of
relativity, may one day be possible. "It also affects other branches
of physics like thermodynamic and quantum physics," says Davies."

Such "heresies" make Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
postulate unassailable. Einsteinians all over the world sincerely
believe that the criticism of this postulate made by Einsteiniana's
priests Joao Magueijo, Paul Davies, John Moffat, John Barrow and Lee
Smolin is quite enough. Divine Albert's Divine Theory is by no means
dogmatic - Masters say the speed of light is constant, then Masters
say the speed of light is variable, in the end Masters say again the
speed of light is constant. Einsteinians all over the world cannot
imagine a more tolerant atmosphere in science. Any walk is permitted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558k...C0155A9 09EEF
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

Pentcho Valev

A very popular educational text:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: "That each finds the others clocks slowed and rods shrunk
is troubling. But it is not immediately obvious that there is a
serious problem. If I walk away from you, simple perspective effects
make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller. 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. Here is how we might try to get a contradiction
out of the relativistic effect of each observer judging the other to
have shrunk. Imagine a car that fits perfectly into a garage. The
garage is a small free standing shed that is just as long as the car.
There is a door at the right and a door at the left of the garage. The
car fits exactly - as long as it is at rest. Now image that we drive
the car at 86.6% speed of light through the garage from right to left.
The doors have been opened at the right and the left of the garage to
allow passage of the car. There is a garage attendant, who stands at
rest with respect to the garage. Can the garage attendant close both
doors so that, at least for a few brief moments, the car is fully
enclosed within the garage? According to the garage attendant, there
is no problem achieving this. At 86.6% the speed of light, the car has
shrunk to half of its length at rest. It fits in the garage handily.
The garage attendant can close both doors and trap the car inside."

The honest (but weaker) moiety of John Norton's split personality:
"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."

Then the dishonest moiety of John Norton's split personality manages
to camouflage the real contradiction by assuming that the garage is
"just as long as the car". However Divine Albert's Divine Theory says
that even if the garage length were half of the car length (at rest),
the garage attendant would still be able to trap the car inside the
garage. Of the millions of readers not one could think of a reason why
the long-car-trapped-inside-the-short-garage absurdity should be
discussed, let alone questioned. We all live in the era of
Postscientism.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein desperately trying to get rid of his own absurdities:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. 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. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately."

The only reasonable solution to Einstein's problem: The speed of light
does depend on the speed of the observer, that is, Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false and should be rejected:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students.../lecture16.pdf
Convention we will choose:
u = velocity of observer or source
v = velocity of wave
Moving Observer
Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda)
Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda)

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement
La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas.
Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !
L'observateur se rapproche de la source
f' = V'/(lambda)
f' = f (1 + Vo/V)
L'observateur s'éloigne de la source
f' = f (1 - Vo/V)

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians discuss the long-object-inside-short-container absurdity:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d56b706c80a1a#
sci.physics.research: "Energy stored in a length contracted pole"

Selected quotes:

Jartza: "Now there is huge pressure in the tube (because a 10 m long
pole is in a 5 m long tube) The energy to generate the pressure
came ... from where?"

Eric Gisse: "Except the pole isn't 10m in your reference frame. It is
5m. There is no pressure."

Jartza: "A 100 m long pole is accelerated to speed 0.866 c, which
makes the pole a 50 m long pole. Now the pole is stopped in a very
very very _VERY_ short time. Obviously immediately after the stopping
the length of the pole is 50 m, and the pole is exploding."

Moderator's note: "After it's stopped, the pole is (still) 100 m long
in its own rest frame (which is a different inertial frame from the
inertial frame of #1). So, there's no explosion. If you actually want
to *understand* special relativity, your best bet is tutoring by a
knowledgable teacher, or failing that, *carefully* reading a *good*
book or two. My favorite introductory special relativity books for
this purpose are Taylor & Wheeler "Spacetime Physics" 2nd edition and
N. David Mermin, "Space and Time in Special Relativity".

Daryl McCullough: "I don't understand the moderator's note, at all.
As measured in the initial frame, there is a time that the pole is
traveling at 0.866c, and its length is 50 meters. There is a later
time in which the pole is at rest, and its length is 100 meters. In
this frame, the pole has expanded from 50 meters to 100 meters. That's
an explosion. If someone tried to enclose the pole in a strong box 50
meters in length, then either the box will break, or the pole will, or
both. That's not some kind of illusion, it's a real catastrophe."

Tom Roberts: "The moderator clearly only discussed the situation
before stopping, and the situation well after the pole is stopped,
with an implicit assumption that the pole remained a pole and achieved
its normal (equilibrium) length. This ignores what happens during the
stopping, which is indeed an explosion (but there's no explosion after
it is stopped and equilibrated, assuming it does equilibrate)."

Tom Roberts: "Given no rebound (e.g. the pole is made up of non-
interacting dust particles), I suspect that in the original
description, the pole remains 50 m long in the observer's frame (that
of the tube)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate allows
Einsteinians to trap arbitrarily long objects inside arbitrarily short
containers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search
Einsteinians trap long trains inside short tunnels

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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. 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
"Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! 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. Comment est-ce
possible?"

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
"La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans
déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une
illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est
plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être
contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par
contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche,
i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa
longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se
mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche.
Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-
même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas
une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les
deux cas)."

How can one "resolve" the absurdity? Relevant questions, e.g. "How
great is the force the trapped object applies to the closed doors of
the container?", sound silly. Any dispute between Einsteinians and
antirelativists unavoidably degenerates into equivocation, with silly
arguments coming from both sides.

The long-object-inside-short-container absurdity (the consequent)
CANNOT be resolved. The only reasonable approach consists in getting
rid of the antecedent, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
postulate.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
The long-object-inside-short-container absurdity (the consequent)
CANNOT be resolved.

It CAN, it's actually in the FAQ of fr.sci.physics. There is NO
absurdity, you're just too dumb to realize it.