HALF-ABSURDITIES IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

http://io9.com/how-does-spacetime-get-bent-560618783
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

http://www.einstein-online.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/Relativity-Its.../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, two-clock, 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