TESTING SETS OF ASSUMPTIONS, NOT THEORIES

Einstein's special relativity is based on two assumptions: the
principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of
light (c'=c). Similarly, Newton's emission theory of light can be
deduced from the principle of relativity and the equation c'=c+v
showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter
relative to the observer.

Yet two assumptions are not enough - the Michelson-Morley experiment
gloriously confirms Einstein's special relativity but clever
Einsteinians admit that the experiment is compatible with Newton's
emission theory of light as well. Let us find a third assumption that
would make the Michelson-Morley experiment more discriminating.
Consider the length contraction effects:

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/p...lativity5.html
"We've arrived at a paradox. The rule that we've described for
translating velocities in one reference frame to another frame,
"common sense relativity", is not consistent with Einstein's second
postulate that the speed of light is the same in all inertial
reference frames. There are only two ways for this to be true. Either
distances are different from one inertial frame to the next, time is
different from one frame to the next. In fact, both of these things
are true. The first effect we call "length contraction" while we call
the second effect "time dilation". Length contraction is sometimes
referred to as Lorentz contraction, or Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.
The mathematical formula for describing it was arrived at by Lorentz
and Fitzgerald before Einstein, but it took Einstein to fully
understand its significance and embed it into a complete theory of
relativity. The principle is this:
The length of an object in a frame in which it is moving is shorter
than the length of the same object in a frame in which it's at rest.
(...) This contraction is not an illusion. Any accurate experiment we
might devise to measure the length of this ruler as it moves past us
will reveal a shorter length than the object has at rest. The ruler
doesn't just look shorter when it's moving. It IS shorter!"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

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

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)."

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."

The above length contraction effects seem absurd. Accordingly, we can
add a third assumption and obtain the following sets of assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The principle of relativity.
2. c' = c
3. The length contraction effects are absurd.

SET 2:
1. The principle of relativity.
2. c' = c+v
3. The length contraction effects are absurd.

The Michelson-Morley experiment refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2. One
can also say that it refutes c'=c and confirms c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

On May 9, 8:15*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's special relativity is based on two assumptions: the
principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of
light (c'=c).

This is off topic for sci.math. Why is it that you insist on
repeatedly posting
your nonsense here?

Medication or a psychiatrist might help you with your obsessions.

What about experiments, not theories?

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

I am sure that the antisemitic Einstein haters in this group will
appreciate this news.

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency of light varies
with phi, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation
f'=f(1+phi/c^2). This allows one to test the following sets of
assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The speed of light varies with phi in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+2phi/c^2), an equation given by Einstein's general relativity.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. By changing his speed, the observer cannot change the wavelength of
the coming light.

SET 2:
1. The speed of light varies with phi in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2), an equation given by Newton's emission theory of
light.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. By changing his speed, the observer cannot change the wavelength of
the coming light.

SET 3:
1. The speed of light does not vary with phi (a strange idea
incompatible with Einstein's general relativity and taught by Stephen
Hawking).
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. By changing his speed, the observer cannot change the wavelength of
the coming light.

The Pound-Rebka experiment refutes SET 1 and SET 3 and confirms SET 2.

Pentcho Valev

The Doppler effect is characterized by a (measurable) shift in the
frequency of light as the light source and the observer start moving
relative to one another. This allows one to test the following sets of
assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The speed of light does not vary with the speed of the light source
(Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is correct).
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. By changing his speed, the observer cannot change the wavelength of
the coming light.

SET 2:
1. The speed of light does vary with the speed of the light source
(Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false).
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. By changing his speed, the observer cannot change the wavelength of
the coming light.

The Doppler effect refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2:

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

Le 09/05/11 15:03, jacob navia a écrit :
What about experiments, not theories?

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

I am sure that the antisemitic Einstein haters in this group will
appreciate this news.


We see here that Valev refuses to answer because he can't say anything
against this new confirmation that Einstein was right...

The Hubble redshift consists in a (measurable) shift in the frequency
of light proportional to the distance between the light source and the
observer. This allows one to test the following sets of assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. The ad hoc hypothesis according to which the expanding universe
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to imitate the Doppler
effect is absurd.

SET 2:
1. The universe is not undergoing an accelerating expansion. Rather,
the speed of light gradually decreases as the travelling light
interacts with (unknown) constituents of "empty" space.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. The ad hoc hypothesis according to which the expanding universe
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to imitate the Doppler
effect is absurd.

The Hubble redshift refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2.

Pentcho Valev

I would like to remind you that you haven't answere yet a single word to
my question:

The gravity B satellite confirmed Einstein theories. What about that?

SET 1:

Einstein was wrong, the satellite should measure nothing.

SET 2:

Einstein was right and the satellite should measure the distortion of
space-time around the earth.

Set 2 was confirmed by NASA. What have you to say to that?

The cosmic-ray muon experiment has shown that muons crashing into an
obstacle as they move close to 300000km/s (called in Einsteiniana
"muons at rest" - see references below) have a lifetime shorter than
the lifetime of muons that do not crash. This allows one to test the
following sets of assumptions:

SET 1:
1. Muons crashing into an obstacle are short-lived because of time
dilation, the miraculous consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-
of-light postulate.
2. The length contraction effects (see references below) are absurd.

SET 2:
1. Muons crashing into an obstacle are short-lived because the crash
disintegrates them.
2. The length contraction effects (see references below) are absurd.

The cosmic-ray muon experiment refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2.

References:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys433/muon_lifetime.pdf
"The STOPPED muon will decay into an electron or positron... (...) The
muon lifetime is measured to be 2.19703 x 10^(-6) s."

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pi...pixx/muons.pdf
"A muon that COMES TO REST in the detector induces one signal upon
entry and another upon decay."

http://www.particle.kth.se/~pearce/muonlab/muonlab.pdf
"The purpose of this laboratory is to measure the lifetime of cosmic-
ray muons. The experimental technique is straight-forward. Cosmic ray
muons are STOPPED in an aluminium target which is sandwiched between
plastic scintillator detectors... (...) A stopping muon is indicated
by a signal in the top and middle scintillators but no signal in the
bottom scintillators. The time between the muon stopping and its decay
(a further signal in the middle or bottom scintillator) is measured
with an electronics system."

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/p...lativity5.html
"We've arrived at a paradox. The rule that we've described for
translating velocities in one reference frame to another frame,
"common sense relativity", is not consistent with Einstein's second
postulate that the speed of light is the same in all inertial
reference frames. There are only two ways for this to be true. Either
distances are different from one inertial frame to the next, time is
different from one frame to the next. In fact, both of these things
are true. The first effect we call "length contraction" while we call
the second effect "time dilation". Length contraction is sometimes
referred to as Lorentz contraction, or Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.
The mathematical formula for describing it was arrived at by Lorentz
and Fitzgerald before Einstein, but it took Einstein to fully
understand its significance and embed it into a complete theory of
relativity. The principle is this:
The length of an object in a frame in which it is moving is shorter
than the length of the same object in a frame in which it's at rest.
(...) This contraction is not an illusion. Any accurate experiment we
might devise to measure the length of this ruler as it moves past us
will reveal a shorter length than the object has at rest. The ruler
doesn't just look shorter when it's moving. It IS shorter!"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

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

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)."

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."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Clearly in 1887, prior to Lorentz and FitzGerald advancing the ad hoc
length contraction hypothesis, the Michelson-Morley experiment
UNEQUIVOCALLY refuted the thesis that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c, the constant-speed-of-
light postulate advanced by Einstein in 1905) and confirmed the
antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light, the equation
c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the
emitter relative to the observer.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's special relativity is based on two assumptions: the
principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of
light (c'=c). Similarly, Newton's emission theory of light can be
deduced from the principle of relativity and the equation c'=c+v
showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter
relative to the observer.

Yet two assumptions are not enough - the Michelson-Morley experiment
gloriously confirms Einstein's special relativity but clever
Einsteinians admit that the experiment is compatible with Newton's
emission theory of light as well. Let us find a third assumption that
would make the Michelson-Morley experiment more discriminating.
Consider the length contraction effects:

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/p...lativity5.html
"We've arrived at a paradox. The rule that we've described for
translating velocities in one reference frame to another frame,
"common sense relativity", is not consistent with Einstein's second
postulate that the speed of light is the same in all inertial
reference frames. There are only two ways for this to be true. Either
distances are different from one inertial frame to the next, time is
different from one frame to the next. In fact, both of these things
are true. The first effect we call "length contraction" while we call
the second effect "time dilation". Length contraction is sometimes
referred to as Lorentz contraction, or Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.
The mathematical formula for describing it was arrived at by Lorentz
and Fitzgerald before Einstein, but it took Einstein to fully
understand its significance and embed it into a complete theory of
relativity. The principle is this:
The length of an object in a frame in which it is moving is shorter
than the length of the same object in a frame in which it's at rest.
(...) This contraction is not an illusion. Any accurate experiment we
might devise to measure the length of this ruler as it moves past us
will reveal a shorter length than the object has at rest. The ruler
doesn't just look shorter when it's moving. It IS shorter!"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

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

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)."

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."

The above length contraction effects seem absurd. Accordingly, we can
add a third assumption and obtain the following sets of assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The principle of relativity.
2. c' = c
3. The length contraction effects are absurd.

SET 2:
1. The principle of relativity.
2. c' = c+v
3. The length contraction effects are absurd.

The Michelson-Morley experiment refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2. One
can also say that it refutes c'=c and confirms c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev