EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

Even if Einstein and his divine theory had never existed, one would
still be able to deduce the fundamental absurdities directly from the
assumption that:

"The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial
frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for
everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate
cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any
physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely
mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples")
can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all
the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified
countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous
section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of
light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley."

That is, even in a purely Newtonian world, the following VALID
argument would be logically justified:

If the speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame, then
an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short
container and a bug can be both dead and alive:

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."

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://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."

However, if Einstein and his divine theory had never existed, the
sanitary logical procedure called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM would not be
long-forgotten and the absurdity of the consequences would
unequivocally prove the falsehood of the assumption. As for David
Morin's fraudulent claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (perhaps
the most important lie in Einsteiniana), fortunately doublethink
forces Einsteinians to tell the truth sometimes:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

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."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

A direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (in combination with the principle of relativity) is
RECIPROCAL time dilation:

You move relative to me at a constant speed in a straight line. Then I
measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be
slower than yours. Both observations are correct.

In 1905 Einstein had not yet realized that reciprocity was an
unavoidable feature so he offered a sensational conclusion that did
not follow from his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

You go and return in a polygonal or circular movement. At the end of
your journey both of us find my clock to have run FASTER than yours.

So the original absurdity (RECIPROCAL time dilation) became malignant
- nothing was able to save scientific rationality. A nice analysis has
been published by Peter Hayes:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
Peter Hayes: "This first appearance of what has become known as time
dilation in Einstein's work requires careful attention. In particular,
anyone who assumes that the special theory deals only with uniform
movement in a straight line and is thus a precisely delineated subset
of the later general theory, will wish to explore why Einstein extends
his conclusions to polygonal and circular movements. It is by no means
"at once apparent" that what is true for a straight line is true for a
polygon, nor that what has been "proved" for a polygon applies to a
circle. The principle of relativity introduced at the outset of the
1905 paper implicitly limited the special theory to reference frames
moving at a constant speed in a straight line with respect to one
another. In later work, Einstein explicitly stated that the special
theory applied only to a reference frame "in a state of uniform
rectilinear and non rotary motion" in respect of a second reference
frame, in contrast to the general theory that dealt with reference
frames regardless of their state of motion (Einstein 1920, 61).
Acceleration, therefore, would appear to be the province of the
general theory. A polygon, however, would seem to necessarily involve
acceleration whenever there is a abrupt alteration in the direction of
travel. Even more confusingly, a circular path, far from allowing
movement at a "constant velocity", has a velocity that continually
changes. Einstein, it is argued, wished to minimise the significance
of acceleration - as he did not mention acceleration at all in the
passage, he could hardly be said to do otherwise (Essen 1971, 13).
With respect to the transition from the straight line to the polygon,
this assumption is corroborated by comments Einstein made in 1911 when
he said that the larger the polygon the less significant the impact of
a sudden change of direction would be.

Einstein: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform
motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a
jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The
sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the
position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is
moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward
motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller
must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." (Einstein et
al. 1993, 354)

(...) The argument that the prediction of time difference between a
moving and a stationary clock violates the principle of relativity is
well known. Certainly, it must have become known to Einstein, for in
1918 he created a dialogue in which "Kritikus" voiced exactly this
objection (Einstein 1918). In response to this criticism, Einstein
underwent a volte-face, reversing his reasoning in 1905 and 1911. The
sudden change in direction of the moving clock, far from having
unknown effects that needed to be minimised, was now said to provide
the entire explanation for the change. Instead of imagining a moving
clock travelling in a huge polygon or circle to make sudden changes in
direction as insignificant as possible or the journey as smooth as
possible, Einstein imagined an out and back journey. He then explained
that the slow-down in the moving clock occurred during the sudden jolt
when it went into reverse. (...) Given Einstein’s argument in 1918, it
seems inescapable that his 1905 prediction of time dilation was not,
in fact, a "peculiar consequence" of his forgoing account of special
relativity (Einstein 1923, 49). When it is also remembered that in
1904 Lorentz deduced the existence of "local time", it is reasonable
to conclude that the prediction that the clocks would end up showing
different times can be reached without entering into Einstein's
reasoning on the special theory at all. The supporters of Einstein,
however, generally maintain that one needs to move beyond the special
theory to the general theory to understand why the times shown by the
clocks would be different. However, as Einstein's prediction preceded
the general theory, this argument is problematic (Lovejoy 1931, 159;
Essen 1971, 14). It has been seen that: (a) in 1911 Einstein
explicitly rules out the ability of the special theory of relativity
to say what happened if the moving clock suddenly changed direction,
and (b) in 1918 Einstein tacitly admitted that his explanation of the
clock paradox in 1905 was incorrect by transforming the polygonal or
circular journey of the moving clock into an out and back journey. If
the general theory is necessary to explain the clock paradox, then
Einstein must have (a) predicted the effects of acceleration in 1905
even though he did not incorporate them into his theory for another
decade, and (b) hidden his intuition by describing a journey that
discounted their significance. (...) There is, nonetheless, some
divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream
scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority
suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox
because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it
cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe
that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because
they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to
suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction
ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction,
considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is
not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that
( c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time
dilation."

Pentcho Valev