🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 11, 11:41, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.htmLee 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."

In fact, Einstein's 1905 theory based on his false light postulate
(c'=c) was a "classical" inconsistency: it allowed one to derive that
a long train both CAN and CANNOT be trapped inside a short tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=

or a 80m long pole both CAN and CANNOT be trapped 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."

In 1907 Einstein simply superimposed a new inconsistency based on the
incompatible equations c'=c+v and c'=c. So the confusion became
inextricable but, since c'=c+v was a true equation, Einstein was able
to make correct predictions, e.g. the gravitational redshift factor.
The conversion of Albert the Plagiarist into Divine Albert became
irreversible.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com