If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




HALFABSURDITIES IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD
http://io9.com/howdoesspacetimegetbent560618783
Dave Goldberg: "Einstein came up with his famous Theory of Special Relativity in 1905. The idea, as you may recall, is that the speed of light should be the same for everybody, and so long as you're traveling at a constant speed and in a constant direction, you shouldn't be able to tell that you are moving. Those were his assumptions (which turned out, as it happens, to be perfectly in accord with the actual physics of the universe), and from them, he found some incredibly surprising things: 1) A clock on a moving spaceship will run slow compared to stationary observers outside. This is also true for heartbeats, pendulums, digital watches, and so on." The moving clock running slow is only half of the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. The whole absurdity would read as follows: "A clock on a moving spaceship will run slow compared to stationary observers outside, and a stationary clock outside will run slow compared to observers on the moving spaceship." The whole absurdity (reciprocal slowness) is never shown to the general public  it sounds too idiotic even in the schizophrenic atmosphere of Divine Albert's world. Only physics students are forced to integrate the reciprocal slowness into their minds and as a result lose their rationality forever. Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




HALFABSURDITIES IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD
http://www.einsteinonline.info/spotlights/dialectic
Albert Einstein Institute: "Due to the phenomenon of time dilation, I will observe that clocks on the other space station go more slowly than my own clocks. And not only the clocks: all processes appear to take more time on the moving station; the station's inhabitants age more slowly, for instance. On the other hand, in special relativity, all freely drifting space stations (more precisely: all inertial reference frames) are on an equal footing. That is the content of the relativity principle: For all such stations, the laws of physics are the same. From the point of view of an observer aboard that other space station, my own station is passing by at high speed, and the consequences are the same: for such an observer, a clock moving at high speed  and from his point of view, my own clock falls under that description  goes more slowly than his own clocks. We have here an apparent contradiction: how can both statements be true? How can my own clocks be slower than those of the other space station, and the other station's clocks slower than mine? Just as at the breakfast table, the apparent contradiction can be resolved if the relativity of the statements in question is taken into account. THE KEY POINT: IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHICH OF TWO CLOCKS RUNS FASTER, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO COMPARE THEM A SINGLE TIME; YOU NEED TO COMPARE THEM AT LEAST TWO TIMES." That is, according to special relativity, in a situation in which an observer is able to compare TWO of his own (synchronous) clocks with the other observer's single clock, the first observer measures his two clocks to run FASTER than the second observer's single clock: http://www.amazon.com/RelativityIts.../dp/0486406768 Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own." The three clocks can stop simultaneously (as judged from the first, twoclock, observer's frame) and then, according to special relativity, both observers will see more time elapsed on the first observer's two clocks (e.g. 5 min) than on the second observer's single clock (e.g. 4 min). The above reasoning does not lead to a contradiction insofar as we stick to the assumption that there is a SINGLE clock in the second observer's frame.. However if there is a second clock in the second observer's frame, synchronous with the first clock and stopping simultaneously (as judged from the second observer's frame) with the first clock, then, according to special relativity, both observers will see more time elapsed on the second observer's two clocks (e.g. 5 min) than on one of the first observer's clocks (e.g. 4 min). The argument can be more elaborate and rigorous but my purpose is only to draw the attention to the fact that the "apparent contradiction" is a blatant absurdity. Pentcho Valev 
#3




HALFABSURDITIES IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD
The bugrivet paradox again:
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html "In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c." Halfabsurdity 1 (a glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate): As judged from the rivet's frame, the hole is lengthcontracted so the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall and the bug is squashed. Halfabsurdity 2 (a glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate): As judged from the bug's frame, the rivet is lengthcontracted so the end of the rivet DOES NOT hit the bottom of the hole and the bug is NOT squashed. So halfabsurdity 1 contradicts halfabsurdity 2, and both halfabsurdities are consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate! Down with Divine Albert? No! Einsteinians have found a simple solution to the problem. In the halfabsurdity 2 scenario, the 0.8 cm rivet becomes, for a while, 1 cm long (or as long as necessary) without any destruction! And the bug is squashed! No contradiction between halfabsudity 1 and halfabsurdity 2! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! 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 atrest length d." Yet the required elongation beyond the atrest length does not save special relativity. As judged from the bug's frame, if the back end of the rivet suddenly stops while the rest of the shank continues to move forward at great speed, and if the rivet is made of relatively soft material, then the only possible result is breaking of the shank BEFORE the bug is reached. This is fatal for special relativity because "breaking of the shank BEFORE the bug is reached" is impossible as judged from the rivet's frame (halfabsurdity 1 scenario). Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Bingo the Einsteiniano Tests Divine Albert's Divine Theory  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  5  April 30th 13 07:56 AM 
EDUCATION IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 7th 13 07:20 AM 
TEST FOR SANITY IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  November 5th 12 06:28 AM 
GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 10th 11 07:03 AM 
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  6  May 2nd 10 05:54 PM 