EINSTEIN'S THEORY: NOT EVEN ABSURD

The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's
theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics
of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a moving clock is slowed
down and a moving rod is shrunk in the direction of its motion. If I
am an inertial observer, I will find the effect to come about for the
clocks and rods of a spaceship moving past at rapid speed. But if that
spaceship is moving inertially, then, by the principle of relativity,
the spaceship's observer must find the same thing for my clocks and
rods. Relative to that observer, my clocks and rods move past at great
speed. So that observer would find my clocks to be slowed and my rods
to be shrunk in the direction of my motion. Each finds the other's
clocks slowed and rods shrunk. How can both be possible? Is there an
inconsistency in the theory? If I am bigger than you, then you must be
smaller than me. You cannot also be bigger than me. That's the
problem. that each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk is
troubling. But is it a real paradox in the sense of there being a
logical contradiction? If I walk away from you, simple perspective
effects make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller.
I judge you to grow smaller; and you judge me to grow smaller. No one
should think that this is a paradox. That perspectival effect should
not worry anyone. The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show
that the relativistic effects are more serious than this simple
perspectival effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction;
and we should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory. (...)
The car can only be said to have been fully enclosed in the garage if
both doors were shut at the same time. There is no observer
independent fact of the matter as to timing of these events. Therefore
there is no observer independent fact as to whether the car was ever
fully enclosed in the garage."

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."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "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."

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

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 28, 1:38*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's
theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics
of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its
length":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/Reciprocity/...
John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a moving clock is slowed
down and a moving rod is shrunk in the direction of its motion. If I
am an inertial observer, I will find the effect to come about for the
clocks and rods of a spaceship moving past at rapid speed. But if that
spaceship is moving inertially, then, by the principle of relativity,
the spaceship's observer must find the same thing for my clocks and
rods. Relative to that observer, my clocks and rods move past at great
speed. So that observer would find my clocks to be slowed and my rods
to be shrunk in the direction of my motion. Each finds the other's
clocks slowed and rods shrunk. How can both be possible? Is there an
inconsistency in the theory? If I am bigger than you, then you must be
smaller than me. You cannot also be bigger than me. That's the
problem. that each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk is
troubling. But is it a real paradox in the sense of there being a
logical contradiction? If I walk away from you, simple perspective
effects make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller.
I judge you to grow smaller; and you judge me to grow smaller. No one
should think that this is a paradox. That perspectival effect should
not worry anyone. The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show
that the relativistic effects are more serious than this simple
perspectival effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction;
and we should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory. (...)
The car can only be said to have been fully enclosed in the garage if
both doors were shut at the same time. There is no observer
independent fact of the matter as to timing of these events. Therefore
there is no observer independent fact as to whether the car was ever
fully enclosed in the garage."

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."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "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."

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

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

Einsteiniana's mavericks: Special relativity's "epistemological and
ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified,
false, perhaps even illogical":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special
Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are
now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even
illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely
observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also
observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian
theory."

Which one of special relativity's two postulates is "questionable,
unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical"? This is a grand secret
between Einsteiniana's mavericks but the reference to an
"observationally superior" ether theory suggests that the principle of
relativity is under attack. And of all the Einsteinians all over the
world not one could think of a reason why brothers mavericks should
not attack the principle of relativity and revitalize the ether
theory. What is absolutely forbidden in Einsteiniana is to attack the
principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009: "The objective of the
conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical
elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT);
the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those
interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially
in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The
organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in
investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure
of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural,
ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution
and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to
a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review
the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the
Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and
philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted
relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations
associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical
investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian
(Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-
type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the
theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 29, 5:30*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana's mavericks: Special relativity's "epistemological and
ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified,
false, perhaps even illogical":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim...-Contemporary-...
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special
Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are
now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even
illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely
observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also
observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian
theory."

Which one of special relativity's two postulates is "questionable,
unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical"? This is a grand secret
between Einsteiniana's mavericks but the reference to an
"observationally superior" ether theory suggests that the principle of
relativity is under attack. And of all the Einsteinians all over the
world not one could think of a reason why brothers mavericks should
not attack the principle of relativity and revitalize the ether
theory. What is absolutely forbidden in Einsteiniana is to attack the
principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009: "The objective of the
conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical
elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT);
the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those
interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially
in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The
organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in
investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure
of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural,
ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution
and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to
a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review
the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the
Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and
philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted
relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations
associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical
investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian
(Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-
type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the
theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

What can a reasonable person do if the officially accepted theory
claims that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length? Should
one try to prove that the length exceeds the greenness? And if the
officially accepted theory claims that both the greenness exceeds the
length and the length exceeds the greenness?

According to Einstein's theory, the youthfulness of the travelling
twin both has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered and
is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin
paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a
distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up
again. (...) 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. Note,
however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to
quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

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.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: Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler
abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial
motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the
analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely
the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces
of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-
around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler
will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days.
That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have
jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump
puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that
it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of
the travelers when they reunite."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein: "...according to the special theory of relativity the
coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed
this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean
(unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems
relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in
straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not
the system K', that is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from
the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running
behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles
of the theory. (...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock
U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the
resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster
pace of U1 during partial process 3. 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 consideration completely clears up the paradox
that you brought up."

Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than
that.

Pentcho Valev

Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, shows how the speed of light
(relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and
explains that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not
vary with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"

Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than
that.

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 31, 9:53*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, shows how the speed of light
(relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and
explains that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not
vary with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"

Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than
that.

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, shows how the speed of light
(relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and
explains that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not
vary with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"


Perhaps if you were to supply exactly what he said that you didn't
understand, I or somebody else could explain it to you?


Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than
that.


Either that, or you simply don't understand it.

I know which of these possiblities I would be betting on.


Pentcho Valev

Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than that:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw,
p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of
equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly
the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could
imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it
gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see
at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives?
There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know
that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the
universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we
must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the
same acceleration as material bodies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "I will then try to reconcile the results with the
occasional (and not completely unreasonable) claim that "objects
traveling at the speed of light fall with twice the acceleration of
ordinary matter." (...) It is well known that the deflection of light
is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least,
light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 3, 6:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than that:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw,
p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of
equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly
the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could
imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it
gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see
at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives?
There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know
that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the
universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi.../4480-PROBLEMS...
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we
must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the
same acceleration as material bodies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "I will then try to reconcile the results with the
occasional (and not completely unreasonable) claim that "objects
traveling at the speed of light fall with twice the acceleration of
ordinary matter." (...) It is well known that the deflection of light
is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least,
light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot