UNKNOWN ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Scientists have failed to notice the following absurd consequence of Einstein's special relativity: The number of objects moving with the same speed in a closed polygonal line increases with the speed, as judged from a system at rest.

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
"Based on that result and to bring the hypothesis of an immobile ether in accordance with the Michelson-Morley experiment, George FitzGerald in 1889 (qualitatively) and independently of him Lorentz in 1892 (already quantitatively) suggested that not only the electrostatic fields, but also the molecular forces are affected in such a way that the dimension of a body in the line of motion is less by the value v^2/(2c^2) than the dimension perpendicularly to the line of motion. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction, because all other instruments contract at the same ratio."

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. This leads to a blatant absurdity which is absent in the original FitzGerald-Lorentz interpretation where length contraction is explained in termes of affected intermolecular forces.

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.

Pentcho Valev

Another unnoticed absurd consequence of Einstein's special relativity: If multiple clocks moving in a closed polygonal line successively pass a single stationary clock, they run both slower and faster than the stationary clock.

According to special relativity, if a single moving clock successively passes multiple synchronized clocks which are stationary, observers in both frames see that the difference between the reading of the stationary clock just being passed and that of the moving clock increases (in this sense the moving clock runs slower than the stationary clocks):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out through space. The moving clock agrees with the reading of the leftmost clock--my wris****ch--as it passes by. However when it passes the rightmost, it now reads much less:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ty/clocks..gif

Special relativity also says that the single clock can be stationary and the multiple synchronized clocks moving - again, in the sense defined above, the single (stationary) clock runs slower than the multiple (moving) clocks..

Let us assume that the ants moving along the rectangular line are travelling at 87% the speed of light:

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

From what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them. According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, 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.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
Albert Einstein: "Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the aether produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. (...) Here [in special relativity] the contraction of moving bodies follows from the two fundamental principles of the theory without the introduction of particular hypotheses; and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular case in point. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun."

This implies that, if two bodies travel, one after the other, with the same speed relative to some system at rest, the distance between them is not subject to length contraction, in the Lorentz-FitzGerald interpretation, but is length-contracted (as judged from the system at rest), in the special relativistic interpretation. This produces the specific Einsteinian absurdity (absent in the ether theory) described in my first posting.

Pentcho Valev

It follows from Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

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)."

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.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

It is easy to see that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, can produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. According to Einstein's theory, length contraction consumes no work - Einsteinians even teach that it is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....s/xTVWGUcNRpYJ
Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."

Pentcho Valev

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."

Not "without contradiction". If I am the sedentary twin and you are multiple twins of mine moving with constant speed in a polygonal line, then we have "the other case" scenario (consecutively checking my clock against your clocks as they pass it) - special relativity predicts that my clock runs more slowly, that is, I am getting younger than my travelling brothers.

Pentcho Valev