🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 11, 11:09, AKG...@gmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> It is striking that professors of relativity theory do not understand
> a simple proof by contradiction. When shown a proof by contradiction
> that 0/0 used in Einstein's integration of photons to SR which
> "faciltate" multivaluedness of the energy of photon (depending upon
> wave length), is not indefinite as Einstein wished  but undefined,
> most of the Professors of relativity theory responsed that I did
> something very wrong in the proof. They think that when a valid
> logical proof leads to contradiction, then something is wrong with the
> proof. For these bizzare thinkers, 0/0 is indefinite and the proof
> which drove contradiction is wrong.
>
> So according to these bizzare thinkers, the standard proof of that
> sqrt(2) is not rational, which is usually taught to secondary school
> maths students, is wrong. They do not undertsand that it is not the
> proof but the assumption that sqrt(2) is rational which is wrong.
>
> All professors of relativity theory insist that it is not the PR and
> PPL which are wrong but the standard logic which causes contradiction.
> Yet they cannot explain what is wrong with standard logic nor can they
> explain how do they reason. Some try to explicate their position
> saying that we can resolve deductive inconsistency of SR by finding
> appropriate interpretations. Some wrote books on this. Some academic
> publisher acceptted such nonsense. Deductive inconsistency means
> derivation of A and not A. According to the model theory, there is no
> interpretation for A and not A. In short, an inconsistent theory can
> not be interpreted. More over, granted that some Einsteinian genius
> broke the varrier of logic and found an "interpretation" for the known
> paradoxes of SR, it is not enough. Ths is because in logic it is a
> triviality that one a formal axiomatic system deduces A and not A for
> some sentence A, it deduces B and not B for all sentences B. So, these
> people have to present an interpretation which resolves all of these
> paradoxes. I wish these people a good luck.  For saying this common
> sense, I was called a lunatic fringe.

You are right when you say that "deductive inconsistency means
derivation of A and not A". However in 1907 Einstein introduced a new
type of deductive inconsistency by POSTULATING A and not A, that is,
he started using implicitly the true variable-speed-of-light equation
c'=c+v given by the emission theory of light without abandoning the
false light postulate c'=c:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum
theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have
appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of
relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the
laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the
speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the
source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory
are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com