RELATIVITY : SCIENCE WITHOUT RATIONAL THINKING

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "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."

Rational thinking says it can't happen - when you start moving away from the light source and, as a result, the wavecrests start hitting you less frequently, this decrease in frequency can only be due to a decrease in the speed of the wavecrests relative to you. Yet Einstein was not a rational thinker - "I never made one of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking":

Loading Image...

Nowadays Einsteiniana's teachers brainwash future Einsteinians into seeing a breathtaking picture: As the observer starts moving away from the light source, the frequency he measures decreases but the speed of the wavecrests relative to him remains unchanged, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Rational science extensively uses REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If the consequences deduced from the initial assumptions (axioms, postulates) are absurd, then at least one of the assumptions is false and the theory should be rejected. Relativity is an ANTI-REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM science: The more absurd the consequences, the more victorious the theory, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. So Einsteinians readily add new absurdities to the classical ones. For instance, they introduce a superidiotic "length elongation", ask the rhetorical question "Isn't physics great?", tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions:

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."

According to classical special relativity, 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. Yet in the bug's frame "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" and the bug remains alive.

The bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for classical special relativity so Einsteinians resort to a neoclassical 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."

http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html
Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. 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. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

The great Walther Ritz did realise that the era of irrationalism was dawning but had no time to counteract it:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/RitzEinstein.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "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."

If a light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d = 300000 km, then an observer moving with speed v = 100000 km/s towards the source measures the frequency of the pulses to be (relativistic corrections are ignored, for the sake of simplicity):

Rational science: f' = (c + v)/d = (300000 + 100000)/300000

Relativity: f' = (c + v)/d = (300000 + 100000)/300000

The speed of the pulses relative to the observer is:

Rational science: c' = (f')d = 400000 = (4/3)c

Relativity: c' = (f')d' = 300000 = c

where d' is the procrusteanized distance between the pulses guaranteeing the equality c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. In this particular case the distance is contracted:

d' = cd/(c + v) = (3/4)d

but it could be stretched as well - e.g. if the observer were moving with speed v AWAY from the source:

d' = cd/(c - v) = (3/2)d

Clearly relativity is invincible - starting from 1889 (FitzGerald performs the first length contraction), lengths always contract or stretch so that the constancy of the speed of light, c'=c, simply cannot be wrong. And once the irrational takes over and becomes official science, rational opposition disappears very quickly - nowadays there can be nothing more reasonable than shrinking or stretching lengths as long as the speed of light remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

That is, the travelling twin is getting older than his sedentary brother all along except for the short turning-around period when some strangeness occurs... What strangeness? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Again: During the short turning-around period, "the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days"! But this is an idiocy - the turning-around period is OBVIOUSLY of no importance:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: Albert Einstein quoted to have written in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

Why do David Morin and John Norton refer to the strangeness that occurs during the turning-around period? Because, although in 1911 Divine Albert said that the turning-around period was of no importance, in 1918 he found it suitable to say that the turning-around period was of utmost importance:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein 1918: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."

So half of the Einsteinians teach what Divine Albert said in 1911, the other half teach what he said in 1918:

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Death of rationality in Divine Albert's world:

Initially Einstein procrusteanized time (and space) in order to justify the absurd idea 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":

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

Vitesse de la Lumière Explication Espace Temps VIDEO

Then Einsteiniana's hypnotists obliterated any remnants of rationality by developing Einstein's idea of "relative" time and space into an idiotic hallucinatory vision of the world:

The Illusion of Time (Brian Greene and other hypnotists)

Pentcho Valev