Absurd Consequences of Einstein's False Constant-Speed-of-Light Postulate

All consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd. Some, e.g. the famous travel into the future, are deduced invalidly - they are Einstein's whims rather than consequences of the postulate. The length contraction idiocies, however, are valid deductions:

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole - an event obviously impossible in Adam's reference frame. We have reductio ad absurdum - it follows from the postulate that an event happening in Sarah's frame is absent in Adam's. Relativity should be abandoned but ... there is always salvation in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Einsteinians save their "science" by introducing another absurdity - now they teach that in Adam's frame the train undergoes an absurd bending (disintegration), as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this pictu

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._variation.PNG

We have reductio ad absurdum again: An absurd bending (disintegration) is required - it occurs in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's.

Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

The twin-paradox conclusion that VALIDLY follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates is an absurdity: According to the stationary twin, the traveling twin returns younger; according to the traveling twin, the stationary twin is younger as the twins reunite:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Einstein's 1905 conclusion "the moving clock runs slower", which is equivalent to "the traveling twin returns younger", was non sequitur, just a whim - it didn't follow VALIDLY from the postulates. The theory was extremely vulnerable but in 1918 Einstein managed to save it by devising something that David Morin calls "enough strangeness":

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] 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." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

"Enough strangeness" is a euphemism for "idiotic miracle that only Einstein can devise". According to Einstein, as the traveling twin turns around and experiences acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field emerges which instantly reaches the distant stay-at-home twin and makes him age very fast during the turning-around period (the hoax is so idiotic that most Einsteinians avoid any discussion of it):

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] 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." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn97_m9XsAID8En.jpg

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De9fBJwWkAEMaXZ.jpg

"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. [...] 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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html

"If it does not explode..." - can it explode? Of course, in Einstein's schizophrenic world. The explosion should be called "Einstein explosion":

"In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode." https://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DafYwspX0AAixYo.jpg

Pentcho Valev