REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM TOPPLES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that an unlimitedly long object can be trapped inside an unlimitedly short container, which also means that the object can be compressed to an unlimitedly small volume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."

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."

In trying to restore its original volume, the compressed object will release energy that should have previously been put into squashing it but actually wasn't. And since, according to Einstein's relativity, the reduction in volume is unlimited, the amount of the released energy is also unlimited.

Clearly we have a violation of the law of conservation of energy, which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's original absurdity:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."

Einstein's conclusion, "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B", is invalid - it does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The valid conclusion (which does follow from the postulates) is:

(A) The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, AS JUDGED FROM THE STATIONARY SYSTEM.

There is a second valid conclusion which contradicts the first:

(B) The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, AS JUDGED FROM THE MOVING SYSTEM.

Clearly (A) and (B) are incompatible, which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev