🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 10, 1:28 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
> Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "An examination of the status of
> length contraction in the context of Einstein's 1905 treatment of SR
> will illustrate the way in which principle theories fail to be
> explanatory. Recall that in this derivation the first conclusion drawn
> from the two fundamental postulates is the invariance of the speed of
> light, that it has the same constant value in all inertial frames.
> This gives the 'k-Lorentz transformations', the Lorentz
> transformations up to a velocity dependent scale factor, k. What has,
> in effect, been shown is that if the speed of light as measured with
> respect to frame F0 is to be found to be the same value as when
> measured with respect to the 'resting frame' F, then rods and clocks
> at rest in F0 had better contract and dilate (with respect to frame F)
> in the coordinated way that is encoded in the k-Lorentz
> transformations. One then appeals to the relativity principle again--
> the principle entails that these coordinated contractions and
> dilations must be exactly the same function of velocity for each
> inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial isotropy, in order
> to narrow down the deformations to just those encoded in the Lorentz
> transformations. What has been shown is that rods and clocks must
> behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be
> true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such
> behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods
> and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the
> relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in
> each inertial frame."
>
> That is, the speed of light is constant because Einsteinians can trap
> a long train inside a short tunnel:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> and also  a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "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. Of course, you open
> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> If Einsteinians were unable to perform miracles of this kind, the
> speed of light would be variable and would obey the equation c'=c+v
> given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the relative
> speed of the light source and the observer.

The cleverest Einsteinian, John Norton, was the only hypnotist in
Einstein criminal cult who immediately realized that the heresy coming
from Oxford University was going to expose the most idiotic aspects of
Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/philphys/index.html
John Norton, 2004: "Neo-Lorentzians return again. A perennial topic of
debate is whether the physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) require some sort of physical explanation that in
turn requires some sort of state of rest such as Lorentz envisaged was
supplied by his ether."

But the cleverest Einsteinian John Norton is extremely clever and
would never contradict his brothers directly, e.g. by saying: "Harvey
Brown is wrong. The physical effects of special relativity (e.g.
length contraction) do not require any sort of physical explanation".
Rather, John Norton is fighting the heresy by introducing efficient
red herrings: Harvey Brown's terms are ambiguous and that is the only
problem (Divine Albert's Divine Theory is unambiguous and eternal):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Constructive_Relativity.pdf
John Norton: "In his Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a
Dynamical Perspective, Harvey Brown (2005) advocates a constructive
approach to spacetime theories. The idea is that spacetime theories
are essentially matter theories. The familiar spacetime geometries are
dependent on properties of matter and induced by them. For example, he
urges (pp. vii-viii) that "relativistic phenomena like length
contraction and time dilation are in the last analysis the result of
structural properties of the quantum theory of matter." Elsewhere2 (p.
132) he describes the view "defended in this book" as "one is
committed to the idea that Lorentz contraction is the result of a
structural property of the forces responsible for the microstructure
of matter," that The appropriate structure is Minkowski geometry
precisely because the laws of physics of the non-gravitational
interactions are Lorentz covariant. and apparently endorses the idea
that "these forces and structures are, indeed, actually responsible
for the phenomena, and, hence for space-time having the structure it
has." There is an ambiguity in the use of the terms central to Brown's
claim: "result of," "because" and "responsible for."....."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com