REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM IN EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

[Pentcho Valev]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
"Reductio ad absurdum (...) is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers, and that during the trapping the objects undergo compression and do not undergo compression at the same time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/images/Ladder_paradox_garage_irf1.png

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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/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."

The long-object-trapped-inside-short-container result is obviously absurd, therefore Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that, in the bug-rivet scenario, the bug is both dead and alive. Einsteinians camouflage the absurdity by introducing two additional absurdities: 1. The rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length. 2. "The end of the rivet will just keep on going [at 87% the speed of light!] until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/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 end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed. (...) The bug disagrees with this analysis and finds the time for the rivet head to hit the wall is earlier than the time for the rivet end to reach the bottom of the hole. The paradox is not resolved."

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."

http://brianclegg.blogspot.fr/2011_11_01_archive.html
Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. (...) But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. (...) Isn't physics great?"

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, entailing the above absurdities, is false.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

It follows from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2B0036DC553691775E012D449DEC62/ant_border_rectangle.png

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev