🚀 go-pugleaf

ABC PROGRAMME:  OPEN LEARNING
ASTRONOMY 2, Ep.16.

EXCERPT

     "(...Quasars must be) extremely powerful and extremely weird.  
Not only that, they're luminous in many different wavelength 
regimes.  They're luminous in Radio, the Infra-red, the Optical, 
Ultra-violet, X-ray -- we can study them in many many different 
ways."

Erica Ellingson
ASTROPHYSICIST
University of Colorado

[clips]

     "As new satellites fly and open up new regions of the spectrum, 
we find that quasars seem to have almost the same amount of power 
output almost wherever you look -- all the way from the hard X-rays 
- high energy X-rays - down to the soft X-rays, Ultra-violet, 
Optical, Infra-red, far Infra-red;  it's only right at the edge of 
the far Infra-red - the millimeter region - where they start dying 
away.  This means some extremely broad band and energetic process 
is going on.  Every time you add an extra wavelength, you add to 
the amount of power output, and up the problem to how do you make 
that much power from that small a space."

Martin S. Elvis
ASTROPHYSICIST
Harvard Smithsonian Cntr, Astrophysics

Message #7667 - GTNET_SCIENCE
   Date: 05-14-92 21:47 [&15&16] [reposted 3-30-93]
   From: Marcus Coleman
     To: All
Subject: Relativity Absolutes
 
 
        Over the past few months a welter of discussions has 
        appeared concerning various aspects of Relativity etc., 
        all of which unfortunately being either irrelevant to 
        the main contested issues or just plain invalid.  So...



               --   A TRUE GUIDE TO RELATIVITY ETC.  --
               ...FLAWS TO BE SERIOUSLY RECKONED WITH.




     First up, some necessary background material for the curious 
investigator, as after all, Relativity is fundamentally a theory 
for the explanation of important physical facts and observations, 
it being intended to replace how the mind naturally understands the 
universe, the world, and by necessary consequence, man's part in it. 
(Interestingly, such intent of Einstein is not dissimilar in aim to 
those of Darwin, Marx, Freud, Hawking, etc., who also well evidence 
it in their theories.)

                          ________________

     It has been declared by a Nobel Physics Prize judge 
(Nordenson) to be a normal experience that when somebody attempts 
to criticise or even analyse the fundamental principles and/or 
definitions of the Theory of Relativity (which arose from a 
theoretical idea, not the need to explain experimental results), he 
is inevitably told that it is of a purely mathematical nature and 
that anyone who is not a specialist in mathematics is excluded from 
the possibility of grasping its contents, that he is unduly 
prejudiced and fettered by old traditions and ideas, that he is 
innately alien to these revolutionary lines of thought and 
therefore more or less incompetent to deal with them.   [Yet this 
is wholly wrong.  The Theory of Relativity although veiled by 
mystery, nevertheless expresses practical 'problems' and has been 
evoked to explain the results of certain physical observations.  It 
is therefore primarily a physical theory, as has been clearly 
emphasised by Einstein himself.]

     And with that same authority assumed by scientists in their 
dismissing all such Relativity criticisms, it is also decreed that 
science is concerned only with finding the material truth.  But it 
is also often revealed that science is frequently wrong in its 
pronouncements - even to the extent of having harboured long known 
and wilfully uncorrected fraud, as some recent exposures have shown; 
not to mention its irrational side.

                              _____


     Therefore where the foundations of straight thinking are 
concerned (which have long been set and settled - e.g.,in the rules 
of English legal grammar), whenever modern science is considered to 
be synonymous with "the truth", there may be present little or no 
element of 'truthfulness' in it (such element being crucial to 
honest reporting, forming sound assessments etc.) -- that same 
element being essential if "the truth" is to be taken in its 
ordinary (and legal) meaning of "the whole truth".  Since modern 
scientists orthodoxly consider scientific facts to comprise the 
only truth, even their being altruistically motivated by 
truthfulness would nevertheless be constricted by their own 
overriding mindset view of "the truth".  The unbefitting and 
sometimes vulgar behaviour of normally well-behaved scientists when 
an "established" idea is threatened by new material evidence is well 
documented.

     There is of course, an enormity of accord between true 
scientific facts and modern science (and with the law for that 
matter).  But any magnitude of accord is wholly irrelevant to this 
fundamental point which concerns the exposing of another primary 
flaw in the workings of today's considered wisdom;  that is to say, 
where in an issue the disciplines of *science* and *the truth* are 
in clear material conflict, the amount of agreement between the 
two is not a relevant aid in resolving the matter.
                              _______

     So, having regard to informed civilised thinking and natural 
psychological truth, it is contrary to common sense and conscience 
(-- both being instinctive human survival-serving influences --) 
to remove the refined and governing element of "truthfulness" from 
the common understanding of the term "the truth".  Why?  Primarily 
because seeking "the truth" is the only means whereby humans can 
attain psychological balance etc.   ....for scientists generally and 
personally, the antonym of "truth" is "error" or the like.  But for 
civilised right-thinking societies generally, the antonym of truth 
is "lie", "deceit" or the like, regardless of any accompanying 
innocent motives.

     There are no conventional "scientific method" ways or means 
of testing for the presence of this 'truthfulness' element in a 
scientific declaration because the "scientific method" - the best 
means of assessment known to modern science (albeit often departed 
from in favour of common belief/personal motives etc.) - is not 
applicable in the matter, such 'truthfulness' element being 
regarded as outside the realm of science and therefore unimportant. 
In short, science now has no means on which it can rely to arrive 
at "the truth".   And such remains the case, with the direction of 
western society now being substantially mainstayed on modern science.

     But contrary to popular thinking, science is not a true 
repository/centre for the highest human wisdom, as is so widely and 
philosophically thought.  There stands another material repository 
- one having a higher precedence in intellectual integrity (despite 
the necessary research to uncover it)!  One not just coupled to the 
learnings and development of pure (i.e., court-provable) science, 
but which derives from prior to, and incorporates, the highest 
wisdom of the ancients (such as pre-Jewish Israelites (Moses, 
Solomon etc.); Greeks (Solon etc.); Romans (Cicero etc).  Although 
commonly relegated to an ideal, such wisdom is an integral part of 
the (albeit almost unknown, yet still current) plain fundamental 
law of the land as has long been established and unbeknownstly 
relied on.



 FOREGROUND --

     Now here's the foreground to what it's all about:-  A 
     variously angled concise enough view revealing the wisdom 
     behind Einstein's theory of relativity - Einstein and his 
     theory being generally accepted by the scientific world as 
     one of the greatest conquests of the spirit of man in the 
     field of science, but more importantly, as an established 
     standard of judgement to the rest of the civilised world of 
     both the excellence of the human mind and the basis of a new 
     physical reality (albeit essentially hostile to Newton's).

     Einstein's relativity was not accepted by a number of his 
contemporaries.  Rutherford, widely thought of as the 'father of 
nuclear physics', considered it to be nonsense.  Columbia University 
astronomer C.L. Poor in 1922 and '30 gave an unassailable refutation 
of the claims of Eddington, i.e., that observations of the 1919 
solar eclipse confirmed Einstein's predicted gravitational 
attraction of light.  It was this "proof" espoused by Eddington 
which brought Einstein his first acclaim and greatest fame.  Poor 
showed clearly that the actual observations were not what was 
claimed and that they did not support Einstein's prediction.  This 
is still a valid refutation of Einstein's presumed gravitational 
attraction of light, and still remains a standing unanswered 
challenge to Einstein's general theory of relativity and his theory 
of gravitation.  As a side issue, this relegates the concept of 
black holes to pure science fiction (notwithstanding the most recent 
discoveries presented as supportive evidence but which again do not 
survive scrutiny).
     In the time since, there have been a growing number of 
scientists who have rejected Einstein's relativity (etc.).  One of 
the most noted was the late Herbert Dingle FRS, a former president 
of the R.A.S., author of 2 books and 2 Encyc. Britannica articles 
on relativity.  At first he supported relativity, but later came to 
realise that it had serious contradictions within it.

     The scientific "establishment" was incensed that a man of 
Dingle's reputation and knowledge of relativity would challenge its 
revered credibility.  His articles were then systematically 
rejected by the leading journals, but Dingle didn't give up.  He 
challenged the top scientists, in personal correspondence, to 
answer his argument against relativity.  Their evasiveness and 
failure to meet Dingle's challenge reads like what one has come to 
expect from politicians when confronted with something important! 
Dingle documents all this in his 1972 work: Science at the 
Crossroads.  This book alone is sufficient to refute the whole 
gamut of Einstein's relativity, both the theory and the presumed 
observational and experimental evidence for it.
                              ________

     Probably still the world's leading scientist on time 
measurement, L. Essen OBE (being inventor of the atomic clock - 
used with his approval in relativity experiments), rejects 
Einstein's relativity.  He is also an FRS and has written a book 
and several articles which expose serious errors in the theory. 
For example, one brief letter (1977), even though rejected by the 
leading journal Nature, is sufficient to refute the claim that 
atomic clocks flown around the world confirmed Einstein's 
shortening of time with motion.  In a later article (1988), he 
stated 1) "Einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its 
internal errors", 2) "Einstein's use of a thought experiment, 
together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a 
result which fooled himself and generations of scientists", 3) 
"Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by 
experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny";  and in 
closing he remarks, "Insofar as the theory is thought to explain 
the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to 
agree with Soddy that it is a swindle;  and I do not think 
Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke [as said in 1954] had 
he realised how it would retard the rational development of 
science".  [There's far more than enough evidence of that in this 
"cream of Australia's brains" (ugh) "science" conference area!]
                              ________

     The renowned British scientist G.B. Brown has also written some 
clear refutations of relativity.  One of his works (1982) presents a 
classical alternative to certain areas of relativity, he having 10 
years earlier mentioned that a number of "Practising physicists and 
astronomers who know some history of science do not accept 
'Relativity' and even a distinguished theoretician, Leon Brillouin 
is calling, in his book, Relativity Re-Examined, for a 'Painful and 
complete re-appraisal' which 'is now absolutely necessary'."


     Even prior to the 1950s, this fear was apprehended by 
scientists, one (1954) expressing that 'On more than one occasion, 
Vannevar Bush has emphasised the fact that our system of education 
is not producing fundamental thinkers of the calibre of Gibbs, 
Helmholtz, Lorentz or Poincare.  [Not that these are the best, 
but they did have some reasonable measure of fundamental scientific 
rectitude, as say, compared to Hawking, who in this sense is a 
counterfeit of these types - an Einstein-environmental product not 
universally acclaimed by his peers despite public adulation.]

     Continuing Vannevar Bush's comment...  'It is difficult to see 
how we can produce fundamental thinkers when our teachers cannot 
detect the fallacies in Einstein's theories, paradoxes and 
postulates, but instead rush to climb aboard the Einstein bandwagon 
where further straight thinking becomes impossible.'


                       _____________________

 DEPTH --

     Now to a bit more depth.  In this conference not that long 
ago, someone expressed the popular thinking that

Quote: 

> Newton's 'laws' of motion replaced the Aristotian[sic] model. > Einstein's model showed that Newton's 'laws' were just a model > 
that operated in restricted circumstances.


     But... but... this is true only from a narrow conventional or 
historical perspective, NOT from a purely scientific, or court-of-
law type one.  If one follows a court's proper treatment of 
evidence (which primarily excludes the authority of theoretical 
science), one would find that there is no tangible evolutionary 
progression from Newton to Einstein.

     Of course, it cannot be sensibly denied that Einstein's 
theories actually depend on Newtonian realities.  And doesn't 
Einstein in the 1st chapter of his 1st (1905) paper state something 
like "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations 
of Newtonian mechanics hold good."?  And aren't those definitive 
equations relied on - and in both his "stationary" and "moving" 
systems?  Yes - Einstein completely relies on Newton when it suits 
him.

     So notwithstanding Einstein's reliance on Newton, since in 
certain fundamentals, Einstein's 'laws' are grossly different from 
Newton's, it's necessary to question if the relationship of 
Newton's 'laws of motion' to Einstein's has any real relevance to 
the known physical universe.

     And it's also necessary to question whether in fact Einstein's 
'laws' could actually replace Newton's -- like Newton's are 
reckoned to have replaced the Aristotelian ones.  And further, 
since it concerns the scientific perspective of how man relates to 
nature, one should decide whether, as is generally thought, 'laws' 
and scientific theories or 'models' have similar factual weight.
In short:

Newton's or "classical" model =      Mod. physics' model = absolute 
absolute physical reality based      mathematically-interpreted 
on natural, observable laws.         physical reality albeit based 
                                     on impeccable rules.


     The major underlying difference in these 2 models lies in the 
force of the laws behind them - one set operates independent of the 
human mind and compels an 'obedience' to natural forces, the 
other operates only dependently (however great the pool of 
agreement), and compels an 'obedience' to only mental forces.  This 
means that the credibility of Einsteinian 'laws' also needs to be 
questioned...


 SOURCE MATERIAL --

     Ok then.  Here again are a half dozen top sources on various 
aspects of the subject from which anyone genuinely interested can 
start investigating, or just verifying anything seemingly too hard 
to believe!

     Following is a Table summarising such authors' material 
concerning relativity.  The authors & publications numbered 1 - 6 
are:-

      1.  N. Rudakov, Fiction Stranger Than Truth, 1981;
      2.  H. Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, 1972;
      3.  L. Essen, The STR, a Critical Analysis, 1971;
      4.  L. Brillouin, Relativity Re-Examined, 1970;
      5.  H. Nordenson, Relativity, Time and Reality, 1969;
      6.  C.L. Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, 1922.

     [Note that although the above all criticise certain crucial 
  aspects of relativity, they all endorse, or refrain from 
  disputing the formula E = mc� (where m = absolutely motionless 
  matter), and likewise the apparent near-c mass increase (though 
  not tied to Einstein).]

                                TABLE
____________________________________________________________________ 
|    Aspects of Relativity     |  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |
|==============================|=====|=====|=====|=====|=====|=====|
|                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|  Clock (or Twin) Paradox     |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |  X  |     |
|                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|  Velocity mass increase      |  +  |     |  +  |     |     |     |
|  Mass-energy relationship    |  +  |     |  +  |     |     |     |
|  Perihelion of Mercury       |  X  |     |     |  X  |  X  |  X  |
|  Deflection of light rays    |  X  |     |     |  X  |  X  |  X  |
|  Gravity-caused redshift     |  X  |     |  X  |  X  |  X  |  X  |
|  Extended life of mesons     |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |     |     |
|  Hafele's clock experiment   |  X  |     |     |     |     |     |
|                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|  Light postulate             |  X  |  X  |  X  |     |  X  |     |
|  Length contraction          |  X  |     |     |     |  X  |     |
|  Time dilation               |  X  |     |     |     |  X  |     |
|                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| 'Curved space-time'          |     |  X  |     |  X  |     |     |
|  Misuse of mathematics       |  X  |  X  |     |  X  |     |     |
| 'Thought experiments'        |  X  |     |  X  |     |     |     |
|  Einstein's fundamentals     |  X  |     |     |     |  X  |     |
|__________________________________________________________________|


  Note:  A plus sign indicates that the author speaks in favour of 
  this aspect of Relativity (though not as evidence for the theory). 
  An X indicates he speaks against it.  If the cell is empty, he 
  either says nothing or accepts current thinking without 
  discussion.

                            ____________


 DISSECTION --

     Firstly, re General Relativity and Mercury's eccentricity:- 
Here's a few things on this subject:-

     "...aside from the perihelia motion of the planets, Newcomb, 
  in the late 19th century, testified to several other disturbances 
  in the solar family. Two of these were the variation in the 
  eccentricity of Mercury and the motion of the line of nodes of 
  Venus.  In this regard, General Relativity becomes useless since 
  it is unable to even explain in mathematical terminology both the 
  secular distortions in Mercury's eccentricity and the nodes of 
  Venus.  These distortions amount to the exceeded values of 
  -0.88" and +10.2" arc per century, respectively." 
     "Relativity does not predict the excess perturbations in the 
  orbits of the planets other than those of the motions of their 
  perihelia.  Still, of all the secular perturbations observed, Gen. 
  Relativity [closely] agrees only with the motion of the orbit of 
  Mercury. It fails to account for more or less than this 
  perturbation since there exists no flexibility in the equations 
  of Einstein, no uncertainty in the calculations, and no room for 
  compensation.
     "Take the case of Venus for example.  Relativity estimates an 
  excess orbital rotation rate of + 8.6" arc per century with a 
  forward motion.  Yet the computed excess rotational rate was 
  found to be -7.3" arc per century with a retrograde motion!
     "[Therefore it appears] that the forward rotation of Mercury's 
  orbit is a mere coincidence since Relativity theory predicts the 
  correct anomaly for this sole case....however, relativists stress 
  this coincidence as one of the four conclusive proofs for the 
  curved geometry of space and General Relativity.
     "The motion of the other perihelia has not been the only 
  fallacy found in Einstein's theories.  The alleged deflection of 
  light in the vicinity of a massive body.....(etc.,etc.)". (Poor)

                            ____________

     Secondly:- 
     In 1859 Fizeau found that the speed of a beam of light which 
was passed through a stream of water was affected by the speed of 
the water and that this effect could be explained by classical 
physics.  However, the effect can equally be well explained by the 
theory of relativity.  By making approximations and discarding 
certain small terms as negligible, Einstein was able to show that 
it was in accord with his theory.  However, he did not stop there. 
Lorentz had shown many years before that the effect was perfectly 
explicable by the classical laws.  Nevertheless, Einstein boldly 
claimed that this "...DOES NOT IN THE LEAST DIMINISH THE 
CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE EXPERIMENT AS A CRUCIAL TEST IN FAVOUR OF THE 
THEORY OF RELATIVITY", and that 'RELATIVITY HAD BEEN DEVELOPED FROM 
THE HYPOTHESIS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS'.

     Now Charles Poor's comment (1922 - see above) on this matter 
is right to the point: 

     "These two sentences of Einstein are, from one point of view, 
  as important as any in his work on relativity:-  they should be 
  read and re-read.  They give a direct insight into his methods of 
  reasoning.  Here is an experiment claimed by Einstein as a 
  'crucial test' of his theories, yet in the very sentence in which 
  this claim is advanced, he admits that other theories, the very 
  theories he attempts to overthrow, can equally well explain the 
  phenomenon.  HOW CAN AN EXPERIMENT, EQUALLY WELL EXPLAINED BY 
  SEVERAL DIFFERENT THEORIES, BE A 'CRUCIAL TEST' IN FAVOUR OF ONE 
  OF THEM?"  It can't, except for purposes of deceit.

     Now, spectral line shift:  There is a very small shift of the 
lines from a distant star predicted by Einstein's theory.  It was 
at the limits of detectability in 1922, for as is well known, a 
shift is also generated if the star is moving towards or away from 
the Earth.  Different experimenters have tried to detect this 
small shift ascribed to relativity but results have varied.

     Einstein, however, claimed the results of Grebe & Bachem 
"PLACED THE EXISTENCE OF THE EFFECT ALMOST BEYOND DOUBT"  but admits 
that those of St.John, "HAVE LED TO THE OPPOSITE OPINION."

     Thus whereas Einstein emphasises the results of the first two 
experimenters which Poor points out were obtained on an ordinary 
instrument available in a small laboratory or observatory, St. 
John's results were obtained at the Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory on 
equipment far surpassing anything elsewhere.

                            ____________

 MORE ON MERCURY --

     Now, a bit more detail on the Mercury Perihelion matter: 
It is reasonably well known that as Mercury circles the Sun on an 
elliptical path, the axis of the ellipse rotates in space very 
slowly, so the path is slightly different each orbit.  When all 
known causes have been allowed for, there still remains a 
progression of the ellipse of about 43 seconds of arc per century. 
The cause of this movement has not been determined completely, and 
Einstein claimed that his theory solved this problem "AGAINST WHICH 
CLASSICAL MECHANICS IS POWERLESS."

     Poor gives a long explanation of the problems involved in 
predicting the position of planets, since they are affected by each 
other in a phenomenally complex way.  Calculations were extensive 
even when certain assumptions were made, the records of the 
computations occupying several volumes.  These assumptions include 
such aspects as the Sun and planets being perfect spheres, and all 
meteoroids and asteroids are ignored.

     Einstein quotes his figure of 43", claiming that "IT DOES NOT 
DIFFER SENSIBLY" from the observed figures of Leverrier (1859) and 
Newcombe (1882).  But Newcombe's final result (1895) was 41.6". 
The average of Leverrier (38") and Newcombe is 8% different from 
Einstein's.  Furthermore, if a calculated value for the oblateness 
of the Sun is allowed for, the difference becomes 16%.  Thus 
Einstein's calculated value does not precisely agree with the 
observed value.
     Einstein quotes only the perihelion of Mercury as completely 
justifying his theory, and dismisses all other anomalies as being 
"UNVERIFIED" or too small to be determined with any certainty. 
This is quite wrong.  When Newcombe was checking Leverrier's 
calculations, he noted several other anomalies in planetary orbits 
which he could not account for.  Poor gives a table of the measured 
discordancies compared to those predicted by Einstein's formula, 
which only affects the perihelion of the orbits:


                               TABLE

  Comparison of Discordancies predicted by Einstein and Poor(1922) 
                    (in seconds of arc/century)

   PLANET            DISCORDANCE     EINSTEIN      DIFFERENCE

   Perihelia --  
     Mercury          + 41.6          + 42.9        -  1.3
     Venus            -  7.3          +  8.6        - 15.9
     Earth            +  5.9          +  3.8        +  2.1
     Mars             +  8.1          +  1.3        +  6.8

   Nodes -- 
     Mercury          +  5.1             0          +  5.1
     Venus            + 10.2             0          + 10.2

   Eccentricity -- 
     Mercury          - 0.88             0          - 0.88

  When all discordancies of the planets are considered, it can be 
  seen that except for the perihelion of Mercury, relativity fails 
  completely to explain the others listed in the table.
                               _____

     Einstein had the gall to dismiss these as insignificant, yet 
they were obviously *WELL WITHIN* the accuracy of astronomical 
calculations and observations.  He appears to have selected the 
largest of the discrepancies and shown that his formula fully 
explained it, claiming this ONE VALUE as proof of his theory.  No 
matter how corrupt the foundations of science may have become, 
there is no scientific ground on which one is permitted to select 
one result of a research and to dismiss all the others as 
negligible, why one figure is to be taken as absolutely accurate 
and all other figures thrown out as worthless.

     But it doesn't stop there.  One more example... The curvature 
of light:  Einstein also predicted that the light from a star which 
grazed the surface of the Sun would be deflected 1.75" of arc due 
to the pull of gravity.  In order to check this, as is pretty well 
known today, two expeditions were mounted, one to Sobral in Brazil 
and the other to the island of Principe off the west coast of 
Africa.  These were to coincide with a total eclipse which took 
place on 29th May, 1919.  The results of the expeditions were 
reported in the Memoirs of the R.A.S. in 1923 (v.62,pp.1-43). 
The results were varying, but it was claimed that they nevertheless 
showed that the expected deflection did take place and that 
therefore Einstein's theory was once again confirmed by 
experimental results.  Poor, however, subjected the results to a 
severe criticism which shows they were wholly unreliable and did 
not support the theory in any rational way:

     "Thirty-three photographic plates taken during the eclipse of 
  1919 show star images;  of these thirty-three, seven only give 
  results even approximating towards the Einstein predictions.  And 
  to make even these seven fit the hypothesis, the relativist is 
  forced to invoke the aid of the Sun to distort the camera in a 
  particular way and by just the right amount!"  .....   "The 
  relativity theory may be true, but no substantial experimental 
  proofs have yet [1922-1992] been submitted by any of its 
  adherents."   (Before considering there are ample proofs today, 
one should make SURE these could withstand the closest scrutiny and 
survive if (hypothetically) subjected to a court-type examination.)

     Poor concludes his work with an explanation of how classical 
methods can explain both the Mercury perihelion and curving of 
light contentions, NOT that such explanations are required with 
this Einsteinian state of affairs!

                        ____________________

 SERIOUS FUN --

     Now to some play-along light-hearted games with a couple of 
relativity's famous 'hits' - length contraction and time dilation. 
First the lengthgame.  See if you can demolish on logical physical 
grounds, the accuracy of this slowed down representation of the old 
well known rod experiment (a la Rudakov 1981):

     'Let us imagine a long straight (E-W) railway line consisting 
  of two parallel sets of tracks and assume that Einstein's 
  *stationary* rod is a segment x of this line.  The end points of 
  the segment are two places known as Redend and (eastward of it) 
  Whitend which are 60 km apart.

     'Let us further imagine that the two ends of the *moving* rod 
  are represented by two slow goods trains, known as the Frontender 

(cont.)