🚀 go-pugleaf

(cont.)

  and Rearender, which travel (eastward) on one set of the tracks 
  with a constant velocity v equal to 15 kmh, and in such a way 
  that the Rearender always follows the Frontender at a distance of 
  60 km.  This distance is measured by observers travelling with 
  the goods trains, and the method of determination is a 60 km long 
  rigid measuring rod x which forms a permanent connection between 
  the two trains.  This idea is of course ridiculous, but certainly 
  no more so than Einstein's Sgt. Pepper type observers with 
  measuring rods and clocks riding on moving rods and intersections 
  of co-ordinates.  Einstein's propositions cannot be demonstrated 
  without such extra-reality arrangements!
     'Finally, let us assume that the role of the light ray and 
  signal carrier is performed by an express train moving on the 
  other set of tracks with a constant velocity c of 120 kmh.
     'If the express train (westbound) leaves Whitend at 12 noon 
  local time, travelling towards Redend, and if the Frontender also 
  leaves Whitend at the same time, but in the opposite direction, 
  then the express train will meet the Rearender at a place where a 
  stationary clock, synchronised with the clock at Whitend, will 
  read 12.444 hrs or 12 hrs 26min. 40sec. pm at the moment of the 
  meeting.  The (stationary) distance marker at the meeting place 
  will indicate that the place is 53.333 km from Whitend and 6.667 
  from Redend.

     'According to Einstein, stationary and moving observers will 
  draw the following conclusions:  An observer travelling with the 
  Rearender will maintain he is travelling 60 km from the 
  Frontender and will point to the rigid measuring rod between the 
  two trains which is 60 km long.  However, a *stationary* observer 
  positioned at the distance marker 53.333 km will assert that this 
  is not so because the express train, which is absolutely reliable, 
  needed only 26min. 40sec. to travel the distance from the 
  Frontender to the Rearender.  At a velocity of 120 kmh this 
  corresponds to a time interval t' = 0.4444 hours or to a distance 
  x' which is 53.333 km.  Einstein prescribes that the stationary 
  observer must assume that for him, the distance between the 
  Frontender and the Rearender, represented by the rigid rod 
  connecting the two trains, has "contracted" from 60 to 53.333 km. 
  And the "contraction", for the stationary observer, is supposed to 
  be real and not merely apparent!  The stationary observer is not 
  permitted to appeal to Newtonian mechanics as it were - oh, no. 
  Or to use natural reasoning to propose a non-Einsteinian 
  explanation of the matter.  So there you are.  The rod changes 
  length depending on who's looking at it.  The real world for some, 
  insanity for others!

     Comes now the timegame!  The 'clock' or 'twin' paradox is well 
known among relativists.  This leads to several questions to which 
a variety of explanations and answers have been explored at length 
by numerous articles, books etc., none of which being acclaimed as 
the solution.  The fact that the paradox still stands very much 
unsolved today (no buts), is sufficient proof that new reasoning is 
direly needed concerning the situation.

      To further illustrate the point, a simple hypothetical 
situation can be constructed concerning 3 instead of 2 observers. 
One could call it 'The Triplets Paradox'!  Such was used in reply 
a while ago to one bod posing the old question:-

> Also consider relative velocity when one object moving 0.8c and 
> the other in an opposite direction at 0.6c. Net velocity is NOT 
> 1.4c as this is greater than c.   Will leave you with that one.                                  � 
                                  � 
                                  �
    'REPLY':

 ||     Now, suppose the two objects are Tom (0.8c) & Bill (0.6c) 
 ||  in identical spaceships and each has an identical camera and 
 ||  an identical clock and a window through which each clock & 
 ||  camera are visible.  Without spelling everything out, suppose 
 ||  they start out somewhere at the same instant and after a while 
 ||  of obtaining their uniform motion, cross at a point right near 
 ||  the top of a mountain on earth where Frank is waiting with 
 ||  another identical clock & camera.  At the instant the space- 
 ||  ships pass in front of Frank (suitably oriented!), all cameras 
 ||  click and each record the clock readings of all three.  O.K.? 
 ||     Since according to relativity theory each has a different 
 ||  inertial frame and in uniform motion, all inertial frames are 
 ||  equal (or whatever), each of the photos of the clocks will 
 ||  reveal according to relativity something unbelievably weird: 
 ||  e.g., while everything may have started at zero mark at (say) 
 ||  2 PM "earth time", by the time the spaceships pass each other 
 ||  as seen from the earth at (say) 6 PM, Tom's clock may read 
 ||  (say) about 4 PM and Bill's (say) about 5 PM. But as seen from 
 ||  each of the spaceships, it's all different to each of them!! 
 ||     That is, (all this is roughly speaking but true enough in 
 ||  its essentials).  Frank's clock on earth may say 6 PM but each 
 ||  of the other pictures of his clock taken from the spaceships 
 ||  at the same instant would have to according to relativity show 
 ||  show a quite different time!!  And what about the pictures of 
 ||  the other clocks too??!
 
                          ________________

 REFLECTION --

     Well, concerning both length contraction/expansion & time 
dilation/compression, one scientist (Rudakov), after reasonably 
well presented logical/mathematical arguments in confutation of 
their actual physicality, vented his spleen thus (question: does 
his acidic tone to any extent invalidate the substance of the 
statements?): 
     "For those who do not shut their eyes and ears whenever the 
   tenets of relativity are criticised, the flimsiness and 
   ludicrousness of the axiomatic structure of the theory is quite 
   discernible.  One does not have to perform a deep analysis of 
   Einstein's arguments in order to discover that neither a 
   systematic nor a consistent and sufficient explanation of the 
   relativistic premises is offered by their author.  No 
   justification is provided for physically meaningless imaginary 
   procedures and rigidly prescriptive rulings.  Clear definitions 
   are lacking, unsupported assumptions are used most of the time, 
   and are used selectively and arbitrarily.  Proceeding from 
   Newtonian foundations, Einstein subsequently pretends that they 
   no longer exist, except where it is expedient to assume 
   otherwise.  Finally, pseudo-physical interpretations of light 
   paths are introduced, leading to the invention of length and 
   time variation."
      Unfortunately, conventional scientists and their many 
supporters tend to grant relativity the status of an a priori truth 
which no longer needs empirical verification.  This puts relativity 
i.e., Einsteinianism etc., into the category of Darwinism, Marxism 
and Freudianism, that is, into that of a science-based ideology - 
one which takes on an overt religious dimension: adherents become 
evangelists, and pure faith takes the place of evidence.  And 
despite strong disagreement from peer-group specialists in the 
subject, such faith is unshakable.

     The much quoted Karl Popper (unwittingly) labelled ALL such 
ideologies "pseudoscience".  These all-embracing views of the world 
or universe are attractive because of their immense apparent 
explanatory power.  Acceptance of such faiths had the effect, said 
Popper, 
     'of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening one's 
  eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated.  Once 
  one's eyes were thus opened, one saw confirming instances 
  everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. 
     'Whatever happened always confirmed it.  Thus its truth 
  appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did 
  not want to see the manifest truth: who refused to see it, either 
  because it was against their class interest, or because of their 
  repressions which were still "unanalysed" and crying aloud for 
  treatment.'   Well, so much for this aspect.

                          ________________

 E = MCsquared --

     And surprise, surprise!   Last but certainly not least, the 
famous E = mc^2 equation - which is accurate unless the mass is 
presumed 'frozen' abnormally in time & space - i.e., where E 
excludes all 'cosmic' translational and/or natural rotational energy, 
which when included can make the equation over a 100 thousand times 
deficient!  (Also, the supposed direct mass/energy equivalence 
declared by the E = mc^2 equation needs to be strictly qualified - 
at least as much as, say, any 'diamond = carbon' idea - because they 
are not in reality identical despite the mathematics.  But that's 
another issue).   So without going into any finer aspects, a quick 
sketch of the equation's origin will suffice.  Here's a summary-type 
segment from a file uploaded eons ago to certain BBSs (NewEinst.txt):

        "It's not Einstein's formula E=mc^2 (1905b) (which was not 
    correctly arrived at until 1906/7 by Planck), but again, (and 
    only once given due credit by Einstein in 1906) Poincare's in 
    substance (1900), that same famous formula not being uniquely 
    dependent on the theory of relativity as Einstein expressly 
    implied but readily derivable quite apart from it (as was 
    first formulated simply by Pauli in 1920)."

      And if that's not enough, there have been other classical 
type derivations of the formula.  And as a novelty, try this one 
from 1938:-
      The connection between energy and mass can also be derived 
   from the pressure of radiation, roughly as follows:  If a jet of 
   fluid of mass density d, travelling at a velocity v, strikes a 
   surface and is absorbed, it can be seen from basics that the 
   energy or pressure exerted on the surface by the jet will be of 
   magnitude dv^2.  Likewise when light, having a wavefront density 
   d, and velocity c, falls on a surface, it is similarly the case 
   that the energy or pressure exerted by the light, being equal in 
   magnitude to the density u of energy in the light, will be of 
   magnitude dc^2.   And since u, being the density of energy is 
   the energy per unit volume and d is the effectual mass, it must 
   be that energy = mc^2.     Q.E.D.      :-) 
             (cf. A. O'Rahilly (1938;1965), EM Theory, pp.304-323.)


And here's a couple of postscripts.  First from H. Dingle:

          "The genius of Einstein is shown most clearly in his 
          perception of an omission from Newton's system of 
          kinematics that had not previously been noticed and 
          that might, as he saw, provide an opening for a 
          reform that would reconcile the two conflicting 
          branches of physics (kinematics & electromagnetism). 
          In such insight he was pre-eminent in his generation: 
          his weakness...lay in his relative inability to 
          follow up the implications of his insight and in a 
          too great readiness to accept a promising starting- 
          point as an achieved goal.  He was rather like one of 
          a body of men imprisoned in a dungeon, who alone 
          perceives an opening offering a means of escape, but 
          omits to verify that it does not lead merely to 
          another part of the dungeon..." 
                                  (Science at the Crossroads,1972)

And lastly, from H. Nordenson (1969):

     "With regard to the investigation I have here presented I 
     maintain that whosoever from now upholds the relativistic 
     ideas or applies the fundamental relativistic formulae as 
     representing relations between physical quantities, without 
     regarding and refuting my above criticism of the Theory, 
     makes himself liable to the accusation of grave intellectual 
     laxity. [Note: Such accusation lacks any correctional force 
              because of an overriding peer group "respect" bias.] 
     "I do not hesitate to declare as a result of my investigation 
     the opinion that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not only 
     among the most sensational fancies, but also one of the most 
     serious logical incoherencies in the history of science." ....
     "I have often met persons..who have expressed their 
     astonishment that Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize 
     for his Theory of Relativity, which many people consider as 
     one of the most outstanding achievements of this century. 
            [Note: the Prize given in 1921 was in relation to the 
             photoelectric effect - not the Theory of Relativity.] 
     "As a member of the Swedish Academy of Science which 
     distributes the Nobel Prizes of physics I am on the other 
     hand very glad that this was NOT done, since THE THEORY OF 
     RELATIVITY IS NOT PHYSICS BUT PHILOSOPHY AND IN MY OPINION 
     POOR PHILOSOPHY." (Author's emphasis in italics.)



                    _____________________________

                     "Free thinking is great." 

                     "Right thinking is greater." 

                    _____________________________