ABSURDITIES, NOT PARADOXES, IN EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the other clock's retardation can be demonstrated.

This is the whole secret behind the so-called twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is, in the scenario taught by Einsteinians, point-like (consists of a twin and/or a clock and nothing else).

As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen moving from point A to point B is the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart:

A clock on the ground is stationary and a train moves towards it. When the clock at the front end of the train passes the stationary clock, an observer on the ground sets the stationary clock to read the same as the front end clock. Finally, while the train and the stationary clock are still in contact, the train stops and the train's clocks simultaneously (as judged from the train's system) stop ticking. That is, at 5 o'clock (train time) all clocks on the train stop both moving and ticking.

Two important observations:

1. Immediately after the stopping of the train, clocks on the train read 5 o'clock while the clock on the ground reads less - say, 4 o'clock (according to special relativity of course). That is, the clock on the ground has been running slow.

2. As the clock at the front end of the train stops, it has just finished the outward leg of the journey described in the usual relativistic scenario. However, since the new scenario has allowed the clock on the ground to move from point A to point B in the train system, the conclusion is different: the travelling clock (at the front end of the train) shows more time elapsed than the stationary clock on the ground (the travelling twin has grown older than his sedentary brother).

Already at this stage the absurdity is obvious so there is no need to finish the story by considering the inward leg of the journey.

Pentcho Valev

Il giorno sabato 22 febbraio 2014 12:35:11 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev ha scritto:
Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the other clock's retardation can be demonstrated.



This is the whole secret behind the so-called twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is, in the scenario taught by Einsteinians, point-like (consists of a twin and/or a clock and nothing else).



As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen moving from point A to point B is the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart:



A clock on the ground is stationary and a train moves towards it. When the clock at the front end of the train passes the stationary clock, an observer on the ground sets the stationary clock to read the same as the front end clock. Finally, while the train and the stationary clock are still in contact, the train stops and the train's clocks simultaneously (as judged from the train's system) stop ticking. That is, at 5 o'clock (train time) all clocks on the train stop both moving and ticking.



Two important observations:



1. Immediately after the stopping of the train, clocks on the train read 5 o'clock while the clock on the ground reads less - say, 4 o'clock (according to special relativity of course). That is, the clock on the ground has been running slow.



2. As the clock at the front end of the train stops, it has just finished the outward leg of the journey described in the usual relativistic scenario. However, since the new scenario has allowed the clock on the ground to move from point A to point B in the train system, the conclusion is different: the travelling clock (at the front end of the train) shows more time elapsed than the stationary clock on the ground (the travelling twin has grown older than his sedentary brother).



Already at this stage the absurdity is obvious so there is no need to finish the story by considering the inward leg of the journey.



Pentcho Valev

...he shouts to the desert the Einstein 'sins...like many others..
but he ( and the many others) don't proposes possible solutions ...
perhaps : each velocity ( and its energies ) has sense (=must be considered ) relatively to its own center of gravity ...
so MMX and successives are largely approximate ( 10000 inferior ) and the works of Sagnac , Michelson and Gale , Hayden are probabely very indicative and resolutive ...
so the original sin of Einstein was to believe to MMX ( also if he doubted ..) and to say after 1) each phenomena is similar in all inertial sistems 2) ligth'speed is the same in all directions ...

Il giorno sabato 22 febbraio 2014 12:35:11 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev ha scritto:
Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the other clock's retardation can be demonstrated.



This is the whole secret behind the so-called twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is, in the scenario taught by Einsteinians, point-like (consists of a twin and/or a clock and nothing else).



As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen moving from point A to point B is the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart:



A clock on the ground is stationary and a train moves towards it. When the clock at the front end of the train passes the stationary clock, an observer on the ground sets the stationary clock to read the same as the front end clock. Finally, while the train and the stationary clock are still in contact, the train stops and the train's clocks simultaneously (as judged from the train's system) stop ticking. That is, at 5 o'clock (train time) all clocks on the train stop both moving and ticking.



Two important observations:



1. Immediately after the stopping of the train, clocks on the train read 5 o'clock while the clock on the ground reads less - say, 4 o'clock (according to special relativity of course). That is, the clock on the ground has been running slow.



2. As the clock at the front end of the train stops, it has just finished the outward leg of the journey described in the usual relativistic scenario. However, since the new scenario has allowed the clock on the ground to move from point A to point B in the train system, the conclusion is different: the travelling clock (at the front end of the train) shows more time elapsed than the stationary clock on the ground (the travelling twin has grown older than his sedentary brother).



Already at this stage the absurdity is obvious so there is no need to finish the story by considering the inward leg of the journey.



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."

Here lies the secret to the twin paradox: In the scenario sanctioned by Einsteinians, the travelling twin's clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin's system and accordingly CAN be checked against two clocks belonging to that system. In contrast, the sedentary twin's clock is NOT allowed to move from point A to point B is the travelling twin's system and accordingly CANNOT be checked against two clocks belonging to that system. Time dilation is asymmetrical (not mutual) in this scenario and Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", and "That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah".

Scenarios that do allow the sedentary twin's clock to move from point A to point B in the travelling twin's system are easy to imagine. Any of them would be fatal for Einstein's relativity. Needless to say, people that could teach such scenarios are successfully marginalized:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev

The bug-rivet paradox:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.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. (...) The paradox is not resolved."

In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. In the bug's frame, "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" - the bug remains alive.

Needless to say, the bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for special relativity. Accordingly, Einsteinians resort to an idiotic ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length and poor bug gets squashed in both frames:

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 at-rest length d."

The "requirement" does not save special relativity. Let us assume the idiotic length elongation (beyond the at-rest length) does occur and the bug gets squashed in both frames. No contradiction now in terms of bug's life and death but another fatal contradiction remains:

(1) In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall".

(2) In the bug's frame, "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole". That is, the rivet head hits the orifice of the hole before the end of the rivet hits the bottom.

It is easy to imagine an event that occurs if the bottom of the hole is hit before the orifice, and does not if the orifice is hit before the bottom. In accordance with (1) and (2), this event will take place in the rivet's frame but will be absent in the bug's frame. We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that the underlying assumption, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

Il giorno sabato 22 febbraio 2014 12:35:11 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev ha scritto:
Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the other clock's retardation can be demonstrated.



This is the whole secret behind the so-called twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is, in the scenario taught by Einsteinians, point-like (consists of a twin and/or a clock and nothing else).



As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen moving from point A to point B is the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart:



A clock on the ground is stationary and a train moves towards it. When the clock at the front end of the train passes the stationary clock, an observer on the ground sets the stationary clock to read the same as the front end clock. Finally, while the train and the stationary clock are still in contact, the train stops and the train's clocks simultaneously (as judged from the train's system) stop ticking. That is, at 5 o'clock (train time) all clocks on the train stop both moving and ticking.



Two important observations:



1. Immediately after the stopping of the train, clocks on the train read 5 o'clock while the clock on the ground reads less - say, 4 o'clock (according to special relativity of course). That is, the clock on the ground has been running slow.



2. As the clock at the front end of the train stops, it has just finished the outward leg of the journey described in the usual relativistic scenario. However, since the new scenario has allowed the clock on the ground to move from point A to point B in the train system, the conclusion is different: the travelling clock (at the front end of the train) shows more time elapsed than the stationary clock on the ground (the travelling twin has grown older than his sedentary brother).



Already at this stage the absurdity is obvious so there is no need to finish the story by considering the inward leg of the journey.



Pentcho Valev

...so like many others think : Einstein did many mistakes ... but the discussions can finish near new facts or experiments ..
i do little experiments ..( i think to have showed that the velocity and the gravity don't change the flowing of time in clocks like Einstein said ...)
i repeated Michelson and Morley in many ways ..i hope to make an experiment where the bands of interference are moving ...are you interested to collaborate ?

The original hoax:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B... (...) It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide."

The scenario craftily precludes the travel of the clock at B in the moving system of the clock initially at A. As a result, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the retardation of the clock initially at A can be demonstrated.

Let there be a large number of clocks moving in the closed polygonal line, one after the other. The single stationary clock (at B) is placed at the middle of one of the sides of the polygon and its reading is compared with the readings of the moving clocks which pass it at short intervals.

In this scenario, according to special relativity, the stationary clock runs SLOWER than the moving clocks, in contradiction with Einstein's assertion above. For instance, if both the stationary clock and a moving clock read zero as they meet, and if the next moving clock reads 5 as it reaches the stationary clock, and if the two moving clocks are synchronized, the stationary clock will read, say, 4 as it meets the second moving clock.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is absurd, not paradoxical.

Pentcho Valev

If one believes in Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, one should also believe that the volume of material objects can be reduced unlimitedly without spending any energy, and that the shrunk object still releases the energy that should have been put in shrinkage when, after being trapped in a small container, it tries to restore its original volume:

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://master-p6.obspm.fr/relat/encours/TD1_201314.pdf
"Un perchiste se saisit d'une perche mesurant 10 m, puis il s'élance en direction d'une grange mesurant 5 m de profondeur et percée de deux portes A et B (cf figure). On suppose que le perchiste se déplace à une vitesse constante v telle que gamma = 2. Un fermier, immobile par rapport à la grange, décide de fermer simultanément les portes A et B quand l'extrémité Q de la perche parvient à la porte B."

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)."

Pentcho Valev