THE SUBTLE FRAUD OF RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev
Einstein's theory had produced:
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/030728-3.html
The essence of the "paradox" is explained here:
http://www.srijith.net/trinetre/archives/2003/07/30.shtml "According
to Nature, a Brazilian physicist has resolved a paradox caused by
Einstein's theory of relativity. Called the"submarine paradox", the
paradox goes: According to the theory, objects traveling at close to
the speed of light appear to get shorter when viewed by stationary
observers. But from the viewpoint of those on the moving object, the
observers - who are receding at close to the speed of light - appear
shortened instead. Other dimensions remain the same. When these
notions are applied to a submarine just below the water's surface, an
inconsistency seems to arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see
the submarine shrink as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light
speed. The resulting density increase would sink the vessel. The
submarine crew would see the opposite: water rushing past them would
contract and get denser, making the submarine more buoyant and causing
it to rise. Relativity insists that both viewpoints are equally valid
- so does the sub sink or swim?"
Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood
(the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces
breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski
spacetime etc.). Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle
of variability of the speed of light) and obtain correct results but
simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in
science. So days come when you are able to extract money from
everything: the miracles, the "paradoxes" caused by them, the
solutions to the "paradoxes", the experimental verification of the
true results etc. No rejection of the miracles is possible - the
collective madness regards absurdity as best science.
Still consider another length contraction absurdity taught by perhaps
the best relativity textbook. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the
stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests
the theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the
pawl and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped
stick? We have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - there are two incompatible
answers. In a different world the theory producing such an absurdity
would be rejected. In this world any version of the absurdity - e.g.
the submarine miracle - can only bring more money to those who devise
it, publish it, resolve it etc.
Pentcho Valev
Autymn D. C.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+relativity+shithead+bodies
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+elèctric+OR+liht+sound+wave
(There should also be a lengthening behind the ship as it tries to
catch up to the lihtwaves hinder, yes? The starship Enterprise does
this.) The lengthly tractions are actually from the /image/ or locus
of the body's emissions. As it's a'faring so swiftly, it hugs the
wavefronts before it because it's subject to the propagation of
signals in its medium; in its own frame, it's the same length with the
same density, so it wouldn't sink because of size. However, its mass
is greatter outside the frame; the problem a'rising is that the crew
should see the sea heavier instead. Happily, forses involv
acceleration, which break back into a preferred frame. Whichever body
had the greatter potential sinks. If the ship always had the
potential, it would'v sunk already and there's no problem.
-Aut
John Jones
xx...@bellsouth.net
> wrong, shithead
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+relativity+shithead+bodieshttp://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+elèctric+OR+liht+sound+wave
xxein: Just testing postability. Sorry.
xx...@bellsouth.net
> On Feb 20, 3:51 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrong, shithead
>
>
> > (There should also be a lengthening behind the ship as it tries to
> > catch up to the lihtwaves hinder, yes? The starship Enterprise does
> > this.) The lengthly tractions are actually from the /image/ or locus
> > of the body's emissions. As it's a'faring so swiftly, it hugs the
> > wavefronts before it because it's subject to the propagation of
> > signals in its medium; in its own frame, it's the same length with the
> > same density, so it wouldn't sink because of size. However, its mass
> > is greatter outside the frame; the problem a'rising is that the crew
> > should see the sea heavier instead. Happily, forses involv
> > acceleration, which break back into a preferred frame. Whichever body
> > had the greatter potential sinks. If the ship always had the
> > potential, it would'v sunk already and there's no problem.
>
> > -Aut
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Damn! It worked this time. Now where are all my other posts
in recent days that I spent hours upon?
xx...@bellsouth.net
> On Feb 20, 6:46 pm, x...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:51 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > wrong, shithead
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+relativity+shithead+bodiesht...
>
> > > catch up to the lihtwaves hinder, yes? The starship Enterprise does
> > > this.) The lengthly tractions are actually from the /image/ or locus
> > > of the body's emissions. As it's a'faring so swiftly, it hugs the
> > > wavefronts before it because it's subject to the propagation of
> > > signals in its medium; in its own frame, it's the same length with the
> > > same density, so it wouldn't sink because of size. However, its mass
> > > is greatter outside the frame; the problem a'rising is that the crew
> > > should see the sea heavier instead. Happily, forses involv
> > > acceleration, which break back into a preferred frame. Whichever body
> > > had the greatter potential sinks. If the ship always had the
> > > potential, it would'v sunk already and there's no problem.
>
> > > -Aut
>
> > xxein: Just testing postability. Sorry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> xxein: Damn! It worked this time. Now where are all my other posts
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Hmmm. The serial order of multiple groups? Maybe the order
of the groups to be posted TO has something to do with it. If there
is a moderated group in the que, and it passes serially, any such
group can postpone or terminate the posting process to the other
groups.
Just a thought.
xx...@bellsouth.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Ah! Make sure that sci.space is not one of the groups. Pay
attention to the whole screen, even if it looks the same as with
previously successful posts.
JanPB
[...]
> Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood
> (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces
> breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski
> spacetime etc.). Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle
> of variability of the speed of light) and obtain correct results but
> simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in
> science.
For the record, what you describe above is a misrepresentation of the
theory. Thus your conclusion (and your infantile derision) is without
foundation.
In other words, your post is mostly the usual nonsense of the "have
you stopped beating your wife yet" variety.
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172093076....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 11:53 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood
>> (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces
>> breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski
>> spacetime etc.). Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle
>> of variability of the speed of light) and obtain correct results but
>> simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in
>> science.
>
> For the record, what you describe above is a misrepresentation of the
> theory.
For the record,
>> >> >> >> >> > Just ask your question precisely.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> >> >> >> As if you'd give a precise answer.
>> >> >> >> >> Ok, I will anyway.
>> >> >> >> >> How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there... err... fuckhead?
>>
>> >> >> >> > It obviously depends
>>
>> >> >> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> >> >> As if you'd give a precise answer. I'll try again.
>>
>> >> >> >> How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there... err... stupid fuckhead?
>>
>> >> >> > Saying "from A to A"
>>
>> >> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> >> As if you'd give a precise answer. I'll try again.
>>
>> >> >> How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get there... err... stoopid fuckheaded imbecile?
>>
>> >> > The question "How far is it from A to A" has infinitely many answers.
>>
>> >> HAHAHA!
>> >> Three strikes, you are out, stooopid.
>> >> The answer was zero.
>>
>> > No, the answer is not zero.
>>
>> HAHAHA!
>> That's a keeper.
>> "A-A <> 0" - Bilewacky.
>
> Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story.
HAHAHA! Another keeper. End of story.
Don Stockbauer
wrote:
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172093076....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is needed is a truly general theory of relativity. That is, one
that defines the relationship between any two entities in the Universe
such as, for example, my windmill and the Beta Lyran asteroid belt.
Actually, cybernetics already does this, but since people discount it
so, the theory needs to be dressed up as physics somehow. Thank you.
"Fantastic insight into the true nature of Reality is isomorphic to
insanity."
"Sickness will Shirley take the mind where minds can't usually go,
come on the amazing journey, and learn all you should know."
"None climbs so high as s/he who is totally lost, either that, or they
fall off a cliff and off themselves"
"We must make sure that emerging intelligent systems do not self-
destruct."
- Harlan Smith
- University of Texas at Austin, 1975.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
> A few years ago the journal Nature discussed a "paradox" that
> Einstein's theory had produced:
>
> Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood
> (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces
> breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski
> spacetime etc.).
This is a complete falsehood about SR and GR and it show the poster's
complete ignorance of how physics progresses in a stepwise manner. It
also show complete ignorance about the Galilean Principle of
Relativity.
First, SR was Einstein's answer specifically to the Lorentz ether
theory, which, by the way, also had relative (local) time and Lorentz-
Fitzgerald contraction, Valev! The goals of SR were very limited in
1905: namely, to deconstruct a material ether of Lorentz so as to
reformulate electrodynamics as a relativistic field theory consistent
with the SR version of the PoR. It was NOT intended originally to be a
theory of gravity! That had to wait. One step at a time, please!
With the success of SR as a valid field theory, Einstein continued to
push the heuristics of his success:
1) every theory a relativistic field theory,
2) no action-at-a-distance fields or effects.
Furthermore, Einstein wrote that he was not satisfied with leaving the
inertial frame as a privileged frame for the development of the
metrical laws of physics. He saw no reason why Nature should choose
inertial frames as preferred in any sense (The Principle of General
Relativity: all reference frames equivelent for development of the
general laws of physics). But this led directly to the Principle of
Equivelance, and that, together with Newton's problematic action-at-a-
distance gravity, were compeling reasons to reformulate classical
gravitation as a relativistic (i.e., tensor) field theory. Einstein
finalized such a theory in late 1915. And the rest is history.
> Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle
> of variability of the speed of light) and obtain correct results but
> simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in
> science. So days come when you are able to extract money from
> everything: the miracles, the "paradoxes" caused by them, the
> solutions to the "paradoxes", the experimental verification of the
> true results etc. No rejection of the miracles is possible - the
> collective madness regards absurdity as best science.
If you insist on analyzing relativity --- which evolved slowly over
the centuries, starting with Galileo's PoR --- from its proper
historical and philosophical context, you can get very screwed up very
quickly, and obvioulsy in your case, not able to recover from it.
Androcles
<surrealis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1172158458....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 12:53 am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A few years ago the journal Nature discussed a "paradox" that
>> Einstein's theory had produced:
>
>>
>> Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood
>> (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces
>> breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski
>> spacetime etc.).
>
> This is a complete falsehood
Not it isn't, fuckhead dreamer.
>
> First, SR was Einstein's answer specifically to the Lorentz ether
> theory,
Hey, fuckhead dreamer!
You are totally ignorant of mathematics, moron.
[rest of drool snipped]
JanPB
dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:53 am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A few years ago the journal Nature discussed a "paradox" that
> > Einstein's theory had produced:
>
> > Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood
> > (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces
> > breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski
> > spacetime etc.).
>
> This is a complete falsehood about SR and GR and it show the poster's
> complete ignorance of how physics progresses in a stepwise manner. It
> also show complete ignorance about the Galilean Principle of
> Relativity.
You are making a false assumption of Pentcho being an honest person
that can be reasoned with.
--
Jan Bielawski