EINSTEIN PHILOSOPHERS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION

Hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult know how to trap forever a long
train inside a short tunnel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

but when they trap a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn, trapping is
not forever but only for a very short time:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....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."

In order to solve the problem, philosophers in Einstein criminal cult
have organized a symposium:

http://www.ias.umn.edu/timeandrelativity.php
"This three day symposium, organized by Professor Michel Janssen
(History of Science, Technology and Medicine) and Professor Antigone
Nounou (Philosophy), will address issues raised by Harvey R Brown's
Physical Relativity. Space-Time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), co-winner of the 2006 Lakatos
Award, awarded annually by the London School of Economics and
Political Science for outstanding contributions to the philosophy of
science. "

Harvey Brown's most important discovery is described by Bradford Skow,
University of Massachusetts:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"There are many things I might be asking when I ask someone to explain
length contraction. I might be asking, "Why do different inertial
observers (who are not at relative rest) disagree about the length of
a given (inertially moving) rod?" Or I might be asking, "Why is a
moving rod shorter than its stationary counterpart (of the same proper
length)?" Or I might be asking, "If you take a rod that is initially
at rest (in your frame of reference), and accelerate it, why is it
shorter after you accelerate it than it was before you accelerated
it?"......I'm not sure what Brown thinks about geometrical answers to
the first why-question, but he certainly thinks that geometrical
answers to the second two why-questions are bad explanations. He
thinks that good answers to these questions say something about the
way in which the forces holding the parts of the rod together depend
on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of what causes the
particles to get closer together, and so what causes the rod to
shrink."

So at the symposium Einstein philosophers will try to understand what
happens to the forces holding the parts of the 80m long pole together
so that the particles of the pole eventually get closer together, the
80m long pole shrinks to a 40m long pole and so gets trapped inside
the 40m long barn. If Einstein philosophers can understand and then
explain this to brothers physicists, brothers physicists will stop
reopening the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the 80m long pole
will remain trapped inside the 40m long barn forever.

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg

Pentcho Valev

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/gen...=9780199232925
"Physical Relativity explores the nature of the distinction at the
heart of Einstein's 1905 formulation of his special theory of
relativity: that between kinematics and dynamics. Einstein himself
became increasingly uncomfortable with this distinction, and with the
limitations of what he called the "principle theory" approach inspired
by the logic of thermodynamics. A handful of physicists and
philosophers have over the last century likewise expressed doubts
about Einstein's treatment of the relativistic behavior of rigid
bodies and clocks in motion in the kinematical part of his great
paper, and suggested that THE DYNAMICAL UNDERSTANDING OF LENGTH
CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION INTIMATED BY THE IMMEDIATE PRECURSORS OF
EINSTEIN IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL. Harvey Brown both examines and extends
these arguments (which support a more "constructive" approach to
relativistic effects in Einstein's terminology), after giving a
careful analysis of key features of the pre-history of relativity
theory."

So Harvey Brown and other hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have
discovered that precursors of Einstein understood length contraction
more fundamentally and the discovery is breathtaking because:

http://www.levynewphysics.com/3-some...questions1.htm
"In effect for him [Lorentz]:...The contraction of moving lengths is
real and NOT RECIPROCAL."

In other words, Lorentz's understanding of length contraction has
NOTHING TO DO with Einstein's understanding and is more fundamental.
In the Ministry of Silly Walks (Einstein Criminal Cult) that is called
"a particularly silly walk"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Pentcho Valev

I took a look at http://www.levynewphysics.com/3-some...questions1.htm

from what i see the LET (Lorentz ether theory) is incompatible with
relativity principle as it is in einstein SR:
"all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
of reference"

in LET case it seems the relativity principle would be formulated:
"all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
of reference if their coordinate systems are skewed by gamma factor
which is calculated relative to ether"

the latter principle does not sound elegant but nevertheless it is a
kind of relativity principle.

wrote:
I took a look at http://www.levynewphysics.com/3-some...questions1.htm

Its opening paragraph is downright wrong, in that it claims the
transforms of Lorentz's theory do not form a group of transforms. They
do. It is even called the Lorentz group (!). Lorentz himself never
displayed the general transform between arbitrary frames, but today the
structure and details of the Lorentz group are well known.


from what i see the LET (Lorentz ether theory) is incompatible with
relativity principle as it is in einstein SR:
"all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
of reference"

Well, that is a rather loose paraphrase of Einstein's PoR. Yes, LET is
incompatile with the PoR, and does not possess what we now call "Lorentz
symmetry". Given the way these names have evolved, that is rather ironic.

Note, however, that LET predicts that MEASUREMENTS performed with REAL
clocks and rulers will obey Einstein's PoR and be related by Lorentz
transforms, so LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.


in LET case it seems the relativity principle would be formulated:
"all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
of reference if their coordinate systems are skewed by gamma factor
which is calculated relative to ether"

That's no relativity principle, it is some sort of "absolutivity principle".


Even though LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, the
historical development of these two theories has been VERY different
precisely because SR is based on symmetries and LET is not. To date, the
Lorentz symmetry of SR has proven to be essential in all of modern
theoretical physics. Note, however, there are tantalizing indications
that this may not be so in the search for quantum gravity (I am
particularly intrigued by "doubly special relativity")....


Tom Roberts

On 4 Nov, 17:22, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
I took a look athttp://www.levynewphysics.com/3-someimportantquestions1.htm

Its opening paragraph is downright wrong, in that it claims the
transforms of Lorentz's theory do not form a group of transforms. They
do. It is even called the Lorentz group (!). Lorentz himself never
displayed the general transform between arbitrary frames, but today the
structure and details of the Lorentz group are well known.

from what i see the LET (Lorentz ether theory) is incompatible with
relativity principle as it is in einstein SR:
"all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
of reference"

Well, that is a rather loose paraphrase of Einstein's PoR. Yes, LET is
incompatile with the PoR, and does not possess what we now call "Lorentz
symmetry". Given the way these names have evolved, that is rather ironic.

Note, however, that LET predicts that MEASUREMENTS performed with REAL
clocks and rulers will obey Einstein's PoR and be related by Lorentz
transforms, so LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

in LET case it seems the relativity principle would be formulated:
"all processes are described identically in different inertial frames
of reference if their coordinate systems are skewed by gamma factor
which is calculated relative to ether"

That's no relativity principle, it is some sort of "absolutivity principle".

Even though LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, the
historical development of these two theories has been VERY different
precisely because SR is based on symmetries and LET is not. To date, the
Lorentz symmetry of SR has proven to be essential in all of modern
theoretical physics. Note, however, there are tantalizing indications
that this may not be so in the search for quantum gravity (I am
particularly intrigued by "doubly special relativity")....

Tom Roberts

Looking for a refuge Roberts Roberts? First read this:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf
"THE CONSTANCY, OR OTHERWISE, OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT" Daniel J.
Farrell, J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull,
Hull HU6 7RX, England.
"Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it
has seemed almost Tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the
speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911
[1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational
potential. Interestingly, this suggestion that gravity might
affect the motion of light also surfaced in Michell's paper of
1784 [2], where he first derived the expression for the ratio of the
mass to the radius of a star whose escape speed equalled the
speed of light......In the 'VSL epoch', so called 'Lorentz
invariance is spontaneously broken'; meaning that the Lorentz
transformatins, or more specifically Einstein's second postulate:
'The speed of light c is the same constant with respect to all
observers irrespective of their motion and the motion of the source'
no longer applies.... Moreover, photons of low energy travel at 'c'
while photons above a threshhold energy can have varying values,
faster than 'c', which are proportional to their energy.....Doubly
Special Relativity also provides a 'natural' mechanism for the speed
of light to be faster in the very early universe, as the average
energy per particle would have been well over the threshold value."

As you can see Roberts Roberts, your refuge called Doubly Special
Relativity often goes together with the idea that EINSTEIN'S LIGHT
POSTULATE IS FALSE. Are you ready to consider this new and dangerous
idea Roberts Roberts?

Pentcho Valev

a écrit ...

Vous pourriez arrêtez de nous gonfler sur fr.misc.maths ?

x+fu2.

--

Etienne