Idiocies Called Paradoxes in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

"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 respect 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. [...] In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

This implies that, according to Einstein's relativity, an object with unlimitedly big volume can be gloriously trapped inside a container with unlimitedly small volume, and then an explosion occurs in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Is the explosion spectacular, Einsteinians?

"This paradox was originally proposed and solved by Wolfgang Rindler and involved a fast walking man, represented by a rod, falling into a grate. It is assumed that the rod is entirely over the grate in the grate frame of reference before the downward acceleration begins simultaneously and equally applied to each point in the rod. From the perspective of the grate, the rod undergoes a length contraction and fits into the grate. However, from the perspective of the rod, it is the grate undergoing a length contraction, through which it seems the rod is then too long to fall. In fact, the downward acceleration of the rod, which is simultaneous in the grate's frame of reference, is not simultaneous in the rod's frame of reference. In the rod's frame of reference, the bottom of the front of the rod is first accelerated downward (not shown in drawing), and as time goes by, more and more of the rod is subjected to the downward acceleration, until finally the back of the rod is accelerated downward. This results in a bending of the rod in the rod's frame of reference. It should be stressed that, since this bending occurs in the rod's rest frame, it is a true physical distortion of the rod which will cause stresses to occur in the rod." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

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

Einsteinians, "this bending occurs in the rod's rest frame, it is a true physical distortion of the rod which will cause stresses to occur in the rod", but "this bending" does not occur in the grate's frame - none of its consequences are observed there. No problem for Divine Albert's Divine Theory?

Pentcho Valev

The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
The Bug-Rivet Paradox

This is reductio ad absurdum. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Einsteinians resolve the absurdity by superimposing an even greater absurdity - the rivet gets longer than itself:

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
"In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

A famous Einsteinian (Ethan Siegel) who wouldn't be happy if you think that the rivet cannot get longer than itself:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSvjJp-VEAAXmsg.jpg

Pentcho Valev

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, during the turning-around acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field appears:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

This HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field is crucial - without it, the twin paradox becomes an absurdity. The problem is that the HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field itself is an absurdity - it extends from the traveling twin to the stationary twin, no matter the distance between them, and is generated by the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin, an acceleration which is even absent in some twin paradox scenarios! Actually "absurdity" here is a euphemism - Einstein's 1918 HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science.

Most Einsteinians implicitly reject Einstein's 1918 idiocy and teach that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial. Sometimes the HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field is mentioned timidly and euphemistically - e.g. here it is referred to as "enough strangeness":

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."

Pentcho Valev

Today's Einsteinians implicitly reject Einstein's 1918 idiocy and teach that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial:

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."

Einsteinians:

http://render.fineartamerica.com/ima...david-mack.jpg

Pentcho Valev