Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432921 > unrolled thread

Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 09:05 -0700
    Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 09:36 -0700
      Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 09:47 -0700
    Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 12:38 -0700
      Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 12:45 -0700
        Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 10:17 +0000
    Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 12:59 -0700
    Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 00:41 -0700
      Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 00:47 -0700
      Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 04:52 -0700
        Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 09:35 -0700
        Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 19:51 +0000
      Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 10:53 -0700
      Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 13:05 -0700
        Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 20:09 +0000
          Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 21:28 -0700
            Re: Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-21 12:46 +0000

#432921 — Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture: 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg/450px-Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg.png 

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#432926

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:05:41 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
> 
> At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture: 
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg/450px-Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg.png 
> 
> Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 

Publish this, Pentcho, and you got fame and fortune. Why do you spend even one second
of your time here when all science institutes in the world would be at your feet for
"toppling" relativity in one short Internet forum posting?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432928

Pencho AutoPosting AutoBot 

c^3 = schwarz p minimal surface

((G * c) / 2 m) / (c^3) = 3.71295774e-28 kg^-1 

1/(c^3/(G*c/2 m)) = 3.71295774e-28 kg-1 

((1836.35002743 * 137.035999 * 376.730313462) / (10^0.5)) * 10 =299792458

(((1836.35002743 * 137.035999 * (4pi)) / (10^7)) / (10^0.5)) * 10 = 1

Nist mass ratio  1836.15267389

((3.71295774e-28 m) * (c^2)) / (0.5 kg) = 6.67407999e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

((((160.390043 GHz) * (3.71295774e-28 (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg))^0.5 = 299792451.774 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432951

"The Bug-Rivet Paradox"  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html 

The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame. This is reductio ad absurdum. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, Einstein's relativity is saved by two breathtaking ad hoc assumptions: 

1. The rivet gets longer than itself. 

2. The end of the rivet may be moving at 87% the speed of light but a wave traveling at the speed of sound is chasing it to stop it. 

Here is how the breathtaking ad hoc assumptions are introduced: 

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html 
 Professor John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d." 

http://brianclegg.blogspot.bg/2011/11/relativity-can-be-riveting.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?" 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432952

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "The Bug-Rivet Paradox"  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html 

And how many times have you posted this over the years? 10? 20?
And how many times you got detailed answers showing you your errors?

> The bug is squashed

So is your "argument".

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433014

JanPB wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev
> wrote:
>> "The Bug-Rivet Paradox"
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
> 
> And how many times have you posted this over the years? 10? 20?
> And how many times you got detailed answers showing you your errors?

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432953

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 11:05:41 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox:

Stupid Brain Dead News Aggregator AutoBot Pencho 

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Ccj9FwOWVEc/zCNoV6IfAgAJ

It essentially Proves Our Space time is the Field of a Black Hole & the CMRB is its Hawking Radiation 

The Formula Predicts the Exact frequency of the CMBR & The Mass Density of the Universe. 
Space Time is Equivalent to a Super Fluid or Perfect Fluid 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations 

The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity. They were first derived by Alexander Friedmann in 1922[1] from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density {\displaystyle \rho } \rho and pressure {\displaystyle p} p. The equations for negative spatial curvature were given by Friedmann in 1924.[2] 

c^3 = schwarz p minimal surface 
http://www.indiana.edu/.../Triply/genus3/PLines/web/600b.png 

((G * c) / 2 m) / (c^3) = 3.71295774e-28 kg^-1 

1/(c^3/(G*c/2 m)) = 3.71295774e-28 kg-1 

((1836.35002743 * 137.035999 * 376.730313462) / (10^0.5)) * 10 =299792458 

(((1836.35002743 * 137.035999 * (4pi)) / (10^7)) / (10^0.5)) * 10 = 1 

Nist mass ratio 1836.15267389 

((3.71295774e-28 m) * (c^2)) / (0.5 kg) = 6.67407999e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 

((((160.390043 GHz) * (3.71295774e-28 (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg))^0.5 = 299792451.774

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432998

Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers: 

John Baez: "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. [...] 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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html 

"If it does not explode..." - can it explode? Yes, the effect deserves to be called "Einstein explosion" - it can only occur in Einstein's schizophrenic world: 

"In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode." 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox 

That is, Divine Albert's Divine Theory allows a scenario in which the volume of the trapped object is reduced, say, one million times, and then the object explodes and restores its original volume! What kind of explosion is this, Einsteinians? Just an idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? No? The postulate cannot be false? The Einsteinian lunacy should remain an inherent feature of our civilization forever? 

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg 
 "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"  x 

It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies unlimited compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The compressed object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433000

 "In addition, even in such a non-co-moving frame, direct experimental confirmations of length contraction are hard to achieve, because at the current state of technology, objects of considerable extension cannot be accelerated to relativistic speeds."

Length contraction has not been observed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433025

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:41:40 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously
> be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers: 

Prevaricating Pentcho poops perpetually.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433042

Gary Harnagel wrote 
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:41:40 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> 
> Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously 
> be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers: 

Prevaricating Pentcho poops perpetually. 

True true 
LOL 😂

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433076

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:41:40 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev
> wrote:
>>
>> Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can
>> gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly
>> short containers:
> 
> Prevaricating Pentcho poops perpetually.

Me frend, is not you speaking. I's the lack of sugar in your body. Take 
care.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433054

John Norton: The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out along the platform. [...] In short, the moving clock is found to have slowed. It runs at half the speed of the clocks at rest on the platform:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/Clocks_1.png

John Norton's site:  http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/index.html

In Norton's scenario, the single clock is "moving" and the many clocks spread out along the platform are "at rest". Norton correctly concludes that, according to special relativity, 

"the MOVING clock is found to have slowed". 

However, if the single clock is at rest and the many clocks spread out along the platform are moving past it, Norton will have to conclude that, according to special relativity, 

the clock AT REST is found to have slowed. 

So if the many clocks spread out along the platform move along some closed polygonal line and so repeatedly meet the single clock at rest, one comes to the conclusion that, according to special relativity, the clock at rest lags behind moving clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the twin at rest remains younger than his traveling brother.

The twin paradox is actually an absurdity - the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433084

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 12:41:40 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers: 
> 
> John Baez: "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. [...] 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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html 
> 
> "If it does not explode..." - can it explode? Yes, the effect deserves to be called "Einstein explosion" - it can only occur in Einstein's schizophrenic world: 

Man, you are confused!

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433086

JanPB wrote:

>> John Baez: "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. [...] 
> 
> Man, you are confused!

WHy won't you better start explaining the way to be understood, not to get 
confused. I say the issue rest on the idea that the doors can be closed 
simultaneous and instantaneous or infinitely fast. It can't. The Nature 
prohibits that. End of story. This gedanken is false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433131

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:09:54 PM UTC-7, Kos Etrakis wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> John Baez: "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. [...] 
> > 
> > Man, you are confused!
> 
> WHy won't you better start explaining the way to be understood, not to get 
> confused. I say the issue rest on the idea that the doors can be closed 
> simultaneous and instantaneous or infinitely fast. It can't. The Nature 
> prohibits that. End of story. This gedanken is false.

The publish it and collect your Nobel prize. What are you waiting for?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#433173

JanPB wrote:

>> WHy won't you better start explaining the way to be understood, not to
>> get confused. I say the issue rest on the idea that the doors can be
>> closed simultaneous and instantaneous or infinitely fast. It can't. The
>> Nature prohibits that. End of story. This gedanken is false.
> 
> The publish it and collect your Nobel prize. What are you waiting for?

Since when they began nobelizing for relativity gedankens. Not even for 
the theory as such. But I just did publish it, there is no more at it. For 
the experience in science, and ie control engineering, that thing is 
obvious.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web