THE WRESTLING THAT KILLED PHYSICS

http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/...relativity.pdf
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. (...) I shall not
rehearse Einstein's arguments here, but it led to the radically novel
idea that, once one physically defines simultaneity of two distant
events relative to one inertial frame of reference, it by no means
follows that these two events will be simultaneous when the same
definition is used relative to another inertial frame moving with
respect to the first. It is not logically excluded that they are
simultaneous relative to all inertial frames. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while simultaneity is different with respect to
different inertial frames; this is also logically quite consistent."

In 1905 Einstein still did not know that a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn when individuals similar to Einstein
forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly":

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....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. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Einstein had known this breathtaking story, he could have used it
to vindicate the outcome of his painful wrestling (instead of
referring to the relativity of simultaneity) so much later John
Stachel would have written:

John Stachel: "It is not logically excluded that the 80m long pole
cannot be trapped inside the 40m long barn, even if Einsteinians
forget to reopen the doors of the barn pretty quickly. If we make that
assumption, we are led back to Newtonian kinematics and the usual
velocity addition law, which is logically quite consistent. However,
if we adopt the two Einstein principles, then we are led to a new
kinematics of time and space, in which the velocity of light is a
universal constant, while any time Einsteinians forget to reopen the
doors of the barn pretty quickly, the 80m long pole remains safely
trapped inside the 40m long barn; this is also logically quite
consistent."

Pentcho Valev