Length Contraction and Time Dilation: Einstein's Fundamental Idiocies

All consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate are idiotic. So length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", 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 unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies unlimited compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The compressed 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.

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 bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this pictu

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iation.svg.png

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

Length contraction is idiotic but at least it VALIDLY follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates. Time dilation, as presented by Einsteinians below, is non sequitur:

http://www.jimal-khalili.com/blogs/
Jim Al-Khalili: "And, the faster you move and the longer you move at that speed, the slower your clock ticks, including your own internal biological clock, and so the slower you age - by tiny, tiny fractions of a second of course."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE
Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light. Einstein plagiarized ("borrowed") it from the Lorentz equations, called it "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the "postulate" (reverse engineering):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
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."

Indeed, the idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is nonsense. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula

(frequency measured by the moving observer) = (speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer)/(distance between the pulses)

is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. The malignancy was there but it was sterile - all VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were obviously absurd and repugnant. However Einstein's second sin - a fraudulent and INVALID deduction - produced a miraculous result that was irresistibly attractive. In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "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."

The conclusion

"The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B - in this sense the false postulate is sterile. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth.. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic ideology was born.

Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Correct, except for the number 25 - it should be replaced by 112:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880

Pentcho Valev

Brian Cox teaches idiotic non sequitur:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
Brian Cox: 2:25 "Moving clocks run slowly"; 3:56 "Time travel into the future is possible"

Moving clocks run slowly as judged from the stationary system, but they run FAST as judged from the moving system (according to special relativity):

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..."

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox
"The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] ...the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself."

That is,

"Moving clocks run slowly as judged from the stationary system"

is a valid prediction of special relativity whereas

"Moving clocks run slowly"

is non sequitur. Accordingly,

"Time travel into the future is possible"

is also non sequitur.

Pentcho Valev

"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..." David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

That is, all along, A observes B's clock running slow and B observes A's clock running slow so when A and B meet again either twin will find the other younger than himself. Idiotic isn't it? Yet this is what special relativity VALIDLY predicts. We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

How can Einstein's relativity be saved? Some additional absurdity has to be introduced, able to neutralize the original absurdity. In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, during the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field appears:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears..." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

David Morin (quoted above) finds Einstein's HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field too idiotic - he has replaced it with "enough strangeness" which sounds less idiotic to him:

David Morin: "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."

Einsteinians teach that the turning-around acceleration is both immaterial and crucial (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we):

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "We read from these hypersurfaces that the traveling twin judges the stay-at-home twin's clock to be running at half the speed of the travelers. When the traveler's clock reads 1 day, the stay-at-home twin's reads 1/2 day; just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2 days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite. Careful attention to the differing judgments of simultaneity of the two twins shows that there is nothing paradoxical in the twin effect. The brief moment of acceleration of the traveling twin completely alters the traveler's judgments of simultaneity and this alteration is key to seeing how relativity provides a consistent account of the effect."

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox
"The Twin Paradox is a scenario that, at first glance, seems to make nonsense out of Einstein's theory of special relativity. The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] What happens is that the twin on Earth, viewing himself as stationary and his brother as moving at high speed, sees his brother experiencing time dilation and thus ageing more slowly. At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. Each sees the other as moving, and therefore as experiencing time dilation. But which brother is "correct" in the way he perceives the situation? Both are. Each sees the other as being younger than himself. How they were perceived by any onlooker would depend on which frame of reference the onlooker was in. It doesn't make sense to ask which brother is "really" older, because the answer depends on where you stand to ask the question! But what about when the brother in the spaceship returns to Earth? Surely the contradiction will be apparent then? Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."

The sudden ageing syndrome described in the last two quotations (and in Einstein's 1918 paper) deserves special attention - this is perhaps the greatest idiocy in the history of science:

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."

Pentcho Valev