Reductio ad Absurdum Topples Einstein's Relativity

[Pentcho Valev]

"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

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:

Loading Image...

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

[JanPB]

Post by Pentcho Valev
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" http://youtu.be/Xrqj88zQZJg
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

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

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

[Pentcho Valev]

"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

[JanPB]

Post by Pentcho Valev
"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?

Post by Pentcho Valev
The bug is squashed

So is your "argument".

--
Jan

[Kos Etrakis]

Post by JanPB

Post by Pentcho Valev
"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.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

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
Loading Image...

((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

[Pentcho Valev]

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://youtu.be/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

[g***@gmail.com]

"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

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously

Prevaricating Pentcho poops perpetually.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously

Prevaricating Pentcho poops perpetually.

True true
LOL 😂

[Kos Etrakis]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Pentcho Valev
Einstein's relativity predicts that unlimitedly long objects can
gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly

Prevaricating Pentcho poops perpetually.

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

[Pentcho Valev]

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:

Loading Image...

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

[JanPB]

Post by Pentcho Valev
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

Man, you are confused!

--
Jan

[Kos Etrakis]

Post by JanPB

Post by Pentcho Valev
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.

[JanPB]

Post by Kos Etrakis

Post by JanPB

Post by Pentcho Valev
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

[Kos Etrakis]

Post by JanPB

Post by Kos Etrakis
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.