Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: RELATIVITY : SCIENCE WITHOUT RATIONAL THINKING
Replies: 4   Last Post: Nov 19, 2013 12:27 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 3,357
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: RELATIVITY : SCIENCE WITHOUT RATIONAL THINKING
Posted: Nov 17, 2013 4:37 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Rational science extensively uses REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If the consequences deduced from the initial assumptions (axioms, postulates) are absurd, then at least one of the assumptions is false and the theory should be rejected. Relativity is an ANTI-REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM science: The more absurd the consequences, the more victorious the theory, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. So Einsteinians readily add new absurdities to the classical ones. For instance, they introduce a superidiotic "length elongation", ask the rhetorical question "Isn't physics great?", tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c."

According to classical special relativity, in the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. Yet in the bug's frame "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" and the bug remains alive.

The bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for classical special relativity so Einsteinians resort to a neoclassical ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length and poor bug gets squashed in both frames:

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html
Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

The great Walther Ritz did realise that the era of irrationalism was dawning but had no time to counteract it:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/RitzEinstein.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

Pentcho Valev




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.