🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 7, 9:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> PD (Paul Draper) wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 12:42 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> The following illustration of the glorious paradoxicalness of Divine
> >> Albert's Divine Special Relativity involves REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
> >> leading from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate to the genuine
> >> absurdity defined above:
>
> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
> >> "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
> >> similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
> >> bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
> >> looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
> >> point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
> >> 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
> >> bug....The paradox is not resolved."
>
> > And this explanation on this website is wrong.
>
> I wrote the author ( RodNave@gsu.edu ) a friendly e-mail about
> this in October 2009.
> I never got a reply, so I have just sent a reminder.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Panic among Einsteiniana's zombies. In the meantime members of NPA
should try to see both the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate and the tragic consequences of this falsehood in the
following texts:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com