EINSTEIN'S LENGTH CONTRACTION IS ABSURD

Originally "length contraction" was interpreted in terms of deformation of rigid bodies in motion resulting from possible effects of the motion on intermolecular forces:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104032
"Both FitzGerald and Lorentz were clearly aware that the deformation hypothesis required some degree of theoretical underpinning if it were not to be dismissed as blatant trickery, or at least entirely ad hoc. Independently, they appealed to the possible effects of motion (relative to the ether) on the forces holding the molecules of rigid bodies in equilibrium, in analogy with the corresponding effect on 'electric' forces."

In Einstein's special relativity "bodies" are not the only ones that contract; distances between them contract as well. I am going to show that this leads to a blatant absurdity.

Let us imagine that the ants scattered on the rectangular line are initially at rest but then start travelling along the line at 87% the speed of light:

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png

According to special relativity, lengths of travelling ants and distances between them decrease twice (as judged from the system at rest). Therefore, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the system at rest, the number of travelling ants on the whole rectangular line must be twice as great as that of ants at rest. Needless to say, this last conclusion is absurd. Since it is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, we have reductio ad absurdum: the postulate is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light:

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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians say "The speed of light is constant" and then are able to trap unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25011.aspx
"April 27: Dr. Kasey Wagoner, lecturer in physics, will discuss "Pole vaulters and Barns." In 1905 Albert Einstein put forth his earth-shaking theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's seemingly unremarkable assertion that the speed of light must be constant had many remarkable effects. Included in these effects are length contraction (moving objects are shorter than objects at rest) and time dilation (moving clocks tick slower than clocks at rest). Given such odd predictions it is easy to see how the theory of Special Relativity can lead to many paradoxes. In this lecture we will explore one such paradox, which concerns a pole vaulter who wants to store his pole in a barn shorter than his pole is long, and walk away with an explanation even Einstein could understand."

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.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Pentcho Valev