A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Reciprocal Length Contraction and Time Dilation: Insight of Genius or Idiocy?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 2nd 16, 08:13 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Reciprocal Length Contraction and Time Dilation: Insight of Genius or Idiocy?

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 106: "The effect is mutual. Each of us finds the other's lengths in the direction of our relative motion contracted. When FitzGerald and Lorentz and Poincaré spoke of a contraction, they thought of it as arising from motion through the ether. Undoubtedly they silently assumed that someone at rest in the ether would find that moving lengths were contracted but that a moving observer would find that lengths at rest in the ether were expanded compared with his own. And the even greater silence of these scientists about the slowing of clocks shows that in spite of their mathematical equations being the same as Einstein's, the idea of a reciprocal slowing of clocks was foreign to their views."

Why were the scientists silent about reciprocal length contraction and time dilation, in spite of the reciprocity being present in their equations? They were not as bright as Einstein? Or they didn't find reciprocal length contraction and time dilation physically plausible? The latter suggestion is more reasonable - actually reciprocal length contraction and time dilation are idiocies.

Let us consider reciprocal length contraction first. It 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.

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
  #2  
Old September 3rd 16, 08:07 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Reciprocal Length Contraction and Time Dilation: Insight ofGenius or Idiocy?

An absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate ("without contradiction" is unwarranted):

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."

Implication (fatal for Einstein's relativity): If your clock is consecutively checked against multiple synchronous clocks of mine, it will lag behind them, no matter whether your clock is moving and mine are stationary, or yours is stationary and mine are moving. That is, if in the following picture the single clock were stationary and the multiple synchronous clocks moving, the STATIONARY CLOCK WOULD BE SLOW (in the sense that it shows less and less time elapsed than the moving clocks it consecutively meets) while the MOVING CLOCKS WOULD BE FAST:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

The picture was taken from he

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton, Is Special Relativity Paradoxical?

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION : IDIOCY PAR EXCELLENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 September 17th 14 07:53 AM
EINSTEINIANA WITHOUT LENGTH CONTRACTION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 16th 12 07:42 AM
INTRINSIC LENGTH CONTRACTION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 17th 11 10:07 PM
Time Contraction Versus Time Dilation Quick Answer [email protected] Misc 7 July 16th 10 12:39 PM
THE BEST EXPLANATION OF LENGTH CONTRACTION Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 23 March 10th 08 01:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.