Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

[Richard Stanley]

Global warming is now rampant - and correlates with the massive CO2 increase, especially from 1977

If you mean the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period, no, it is hotter now. Perhaps only in the UK, where the weather is still not quite right for ripening grapes, might you claim that the Medieval & Roman Warm Periods were warmer.

Greenland nowadays is warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period.

I guess if you believe provably corrupt data:

https://postflaviana.org/community/...ing-denial-the-green-new-deal.1536/post-14332

 

[Claude Badley]

I might have believed you...

I guess if you believe provably corrupt data:

https://postflaviana.org/community/...ing-denial-the-green-new-deal.1536/post-14332

...except that you are referring to provably obsolete claims from an earlier thread.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

This thread has been completely off the rails since about post #89, as far as any connection to the original topic is concerned.

There's been lots of discussion about global warming in general, and the claims of Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard in particular, since last December 2019, over in the "globalist warming denial" thread. Sadly, I don't think Richard ever admitted that Tony Heller's claims are provably false or obsolete.

 

[Richard Stanley]

1. Huh?

2. Huh?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Nobody said anything about "1." Or "2."

 

[Richard Stanley]

So y'all are making special relativity pleadings?

 

[Claude Badley]

[Note: the following discussion about Einstein and Relativity has been moved from the thread 'Planet of the Humans...']

... cornucopianism ignores the fact that the Earth itself has limits to growth, irrespective of Malthus, so is THE major threat to our future, being the further development of the Whig model of endless growth.

Solar and wind will not resolve the crisis, only mitigate it. To get effective nuclear fusion, we have to discard Einstein's teachings - and those who support it.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Claude Badley]

Earth is finite therefore its economic growth is finite. Only if interstellar and intergalactic travel is achieved is this restriction broken - but you can only dream of Einsteinian spacetime warps and wormholes and other science fiction, since you deny that man can ever travel faster than light!

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

Only if interstellar and intergalactic travel is achieved is this restriction broken

Claude, haven't you watched Star Trek? Of course it's just a matter of time before warp drive is achieved. The cultural success of the series is proof positive that even Einsteinians can have dreams. But I'm talking about the limits imposed by technology that's either currently existing, or could be implemented without dramatic breakthroughs.

If you have the secret to implementing nuclear fusion, please get on with it!! Don't dally around here preaching to the semi converted.

 

[Claude Badley]

Doctor Schlock replies.

Claude, haven't you watched Star Trek? Of course it's just a matter of time before warp drive is achieved. The cultural success of the series is proof positive that even Einsteinians can have dreams.

The cultural success of BS is a commonplace, as our various religions reveal - look at your own Oregon-based Bhagwan whose supporters once greatly outnumbered the Postflavians today - hence the escalating conflict coupled with protestations of wanting peace for mankind.

But I'm talking about the limits imposed by technology that's either currently existing, or could be implemented without dramatic breakthroughs.

So even you exclude the Star Trek fantasies while yet dangling them as mankind's ultimate hope.

The point is: if Star Trek is a true picture of humanity's future then equally so is Lost in Space! Hence I find it hard not to exclaim like Dr Zachary Smith: "Oh the pain, the pain of having to listen to the robotically optimistic phrases of modernity"

If you have the secret to implementing nuclear fusion, please get on with it!! Don't dally around here preaching to the semi converted.

I'm getting on with it - but Eric Lerner (author of the Big Bang Never Happened and leading boron-hydrogen fusion pioneer) is not quite at the position to start experimenting with it.


Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

...reveals that you do not understand the deeper motivations that maintain these prejudices in peoples' minds - notably the complacency and befuddlement produced in people when they believe the Einsteinian propaganda bombarded upon them by both the pop-media and by authorities claiming to be scientific (e.g. mixing up Star Trek with scientific research).

Star Trek is not scientific research, but I offer it as evidence that cultural imagination is not inhibited by Einsteinian realism. As for "deeper motivations", complacency and befuddlement, surely that didn't start with Einstein? What about Vespasian and Titus?

 

[Richard Stanley]

And ... he wants us to dump Einstein.

As Pogo said, "I don't give a fig for ol' Newton", similarly I don't give a figging damn about Einstein, at least regarding our major terrestrial interests.

I have heard that the GPS system does not employ Einstein's transforms (for maintaining positioning accuracy adjustments), but rather those of his mentor's (whose name I can never remember - Lauritzen?). I don't have the time or energy to research and verify this claim.

I have problems with the Big Bang, but it is quite interesting how the sequence of the 7 'phases' of Creation otherwise track fairly well with such as Evolution and such. Who gnew?

I'm not sure if either Pogo or Fig Newtons are known in Australia.

 

[Claude Badley]

...the elite cabal of Freemasons and bankers espouse an ideology embracing absolute atheistic determinism (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Daniel Dennett) or religious monotheistic absolutism where God knows the future absolutely - spiced up by the seemingly opposed situation where unpredictable uncaused accidents intervene unaccountably in the world (Popper*), but being uncaused, cannot be investigated scientifically.

These implications are the opposite to those of Fascism/Nazism, which instead asserts, as I do too, the fundamental DISORDER of the universe, while holding to causality, that the universe can still be investigated productively by science. (The disparaging of science by some Fascists/Nazis is paralleled today by creationists in the West so does not demonstrate an essential anti-science bent in Fascism/Nazism. Read for example the works of Alan Beyerchen. Marxists however have an inbuilt attraction to simplistic pseudo-science e.g. Einsteinism and the teachings of Wilhelm Reich.)

Which reminds me: have you ever met Dr Schlock? He was prominent in the 1960s. Not only did he 'elucidate', or rather 'expound upon' Einsteinian pseudo-profundities on Star Trek but he also set himself up as a child-rearing expert, particularly advocating the Marcusean doctrine about exploring "infant sexuality". Beware if his friends approach you though - they just might be wanting bail money!

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Popper is of course evasive on the question of uncaused accidents, attributing the idea to quantum theory, to Bohr-Heisenberg type C theorizing, i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation. Acausal accidents which seem to 'refute' determinism are invoked by Popper under the name 'absolute chance' (The Open Universe "Determinism & Indeterminism in Physics" p. 125) being "elementary physical processes which are not further analyzable in terms of causal chains but which consist of so-called 'quantum jumps'." In this way science comes to an end, type C quantum theory, a.k.a. Complementarity, reducing it to magic and make believe, hence Popper refers to use a vaguer more ambiguous term - indeterminism as well as the well-known but mistranslated "uncertainty principle" (Unschärfrelation) which covers the same type of thinking.

 

[Claude Badley]

The key to genuine understanding is to accept that difference has an absolute basis. IOW that matter, space and time are ontologically distinct from one another so cannot be scientifically combined as spacetime and space-time-matter because the latter concepts render history absurd.
Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

As Pogo said, "I don't give a fig for ol' Newton", similarly I don't give a figging damn about Einstein, at least regarding our major terrestrial interests.

I have heard that the GPS system does not employ Einstein's transforms (for maintaining positioning accuracy adjustments), but rather those of his mentor's (whose name I can never remember - Lauritzen?). I don't have the time or energy to research and verify this claim.

I can basically agree with this, except that I did spend some time studying Einstein in school, and so I can't plead total ignorance. This basic exposure and awareness isn't nearly enough to evoke any sort of religious fervor on my part. If Badley has some relevant evidence or argument in opposition to Einstein, I'm ready to consider it. Endless browbeating and innnuendo just gets tiresome.

The Lorentz transforms have been incorporated into Einstein's theories of relativity. I'm not sure if Badley agrees with the Lorentz transforms, or if he has some alternative theory to explain them.

 

[Claude Badley]

If Badley has some relevant evidence or argument in opposition to Einstein, I'm ready to consider it. Endless browbeating and innnuendo just gets tiresome.

The most basic question in philosophy is to explain change. The most basic form of change is motion.

Motion of material objects in the most basic form of speed or velocity is measured in units of space divided by time. This observation is fundamental to human existence - and invokes the philosophical stance that matter, space and time are ontologically separate. They are separate kinds of beings that relate to one another prepositionally, not causally i.e. matter is in space which in turn is in time.

(Here of course I am denying the pop-Marxist-materialist monist idiocy that "everything is ultimately matter"*).

In contrast, Einstein flatly denies these philosophical fundamentals, replacing it with mishmash such as space-time-matter and TD&LC (time dilation and length contraction) in which there is an ontological muddling of matter, space and time into a deterministic blob, whereby everything is predetermined and humans are mere hapless victims unable to comprehend the wider world.

The Lorentz transforms have been incorporated into Einstein's theories of relativity. I'm not sure if Badley agrees with the Lorentz transforms, or if he has some alternative theory to explain them.

The Lorentz transforms (LTs) are the equations that 'measure' TD&LC; they are absolutely essential to Einstein's relativity and not merely "incorporated" into it. Conversely, the so-called "alternative theory" merely states the facts, long suppressed by the Einsteinians.

The LTs are actually a misapplication of the Voigt Doppler Equations. In the later 19th century Woldemar Voigt originally wrote down the equations to explain the Doppler Effect in light (see Pais, Subtle is the Lord pp. 119-122).

Lorentz hijacked these equations to apply to a rubbish theory - the idea of LC (of matter and also space itself!) due to absolute motion, invented by George Fitzgerald, an Anglican Irish physicist, and based upon Newton's absolute space co-identified with the stagnant aether, the overall theoretical construct here being that of the plenum (You'll have to read about this last word in order to understand the philosophical issue behind it).

Henri Poincaré developed the BS further, misapplying the same equation to time, hence the absurd belief that any two clocks in linear motion wrt** one another are mutually time dilated - a fundamentally absurd claim.

TD&LC were soon combined by Lorentz into Lorentzian relativity, where the universe was static and hence absolute motion meaningful. This denies Galilean relativity where all motion is relative.

Einstein then hijacked Lorentz's explanations AND the misapplied Voigt Doppler Equation to create special relativity (SR) which differs from Lorentzian relativity in that Einstein denies absolute motion while clinging to the paradox-engendering BS notions i.e. TD&LC. This means that TD&LC apply relatively to all mutually moving objects, ensuring logical paradox rules the universe. Hence the mass befuddlement and passivity characteristic of developed late modernity (= crumbling capitalism).

For example, according to SR any two mutually moving objects are LC'd (length contracted) wrt one another. Yet another logically paradoxical absurdity.

Yours faithfully
Claude


*Or as the Pan-Macmillan "Dictionary of Philosophy" (1984) put it:

"whatever exists is either matter, or entirely dependent on matter for its existence"

Under this definition objectivity is lost since objectivity is a primary quality, not a derivative or dependent one. I.e. space and time are NOT subordinate to matter, contra Einstein. And this philosophical stance also explains the sharply-defined difference between causality (the authentic scientific position) and determinism (the Einsteinian position).

**wrt means "with respect to"

 

[Jerry Russell]

[Note: the preceding discussion about Einstein and Relativity has been moved from the thread 'Planet of the Humans...']

In the later 19th century Woldemar Voigt originally wrote down the equations to explain the Doppler Effect in light (see Pais, Subtle is the Lord pp. 119-122).

So to clarify: you accept Voigt's doppler equations?

Physics Today explains:

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4429

Voigt’s derivation takes a classic approach that is still used in today’s textbooks to derive the Doppler effect. Twenty years later, Einstein completed the relativistic description of the Doppler effect by predicting the transverse Doppler effect for a source moving along a line perpendicular to an observer’s line of sight.13 That effect had not been predicted by either Doppler or Voigt.​

'Conspiracy of Light' argues that even if the transverse Doppler effect doesn't prove the complete Einsteinian package, at least it demonstrates that the Lorentz length contraction can be experimentally verified.

the overall theoretical construct here being that of the plenum

Could you clarify whether you accept the idea of a plenum (a stationary frame of reference) or whether you reject it? If I'm understanding correctly, Lorentz accepted the idea of a plenum, while Einstein returned to a Galilean perspective that motion is relative.

For example, according to SR any two mutually moving objects are LC'd (length contracted) wrt one another. Yet another logically paradoxical absurdity.

As I believe we've discussed before, length contraction is experimentally verified. And furthermore, I don't see what's logically paradoxical about it.

 

[Claude Badley]

So to clarify: you accept Voigt's doppler equations?

Yes, because when applied properly they describe the Doppler Effect in light correctly, even though Voigt himself upheld a false theory as to the "crystal ether". However, Physics Today is wrong below.

Physics Today explains:

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4429

Voigt’s derivation takes a classic approach that is still used in today’s textbooks to derive the Doppler effect. Twenty years later, Einstein completed the relativistic description of the Doppler effect by predicting the transverse Doppler effect for a source moving along a line perpendicular to an observer’s line of sight.13 That effect had not been predicted by either Doppler or Voigt.​

The transverse doppler effect, whereby light at an angle to the observer is redshifted is an experimental fact which does not require Einstein's so called "completion". Einstein's "relativistic description of the Doppler effect" is merely a mathematical ploy to subjugate the Doppler Effect into his nonsensical SR theory.

We see this especially in Einstein's initial SR article form 1905 - On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (OEMBS)* - where in part I §§1-2 he starts off with philosophy, by defining space and time as merely relative, pretending that this philosophy is a scientific discovery rather than the manipulative line of argument it is, thereby setting the tone for the rest of the article.

The rest of the article is mathematics-dominated, physical relevance and interpretation rendered secondary or irrelevant. The Doppler Effect is not treated until §7, being entirely mathematical and containing the transverse Doppler effect within it. The result is the complete subordination of the Doppler Effect to SR! And furthermore, this leads to a significant conclusion.

It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite intensity.

It is conclusions like this that lead to the false inference that people will never travel faster than light (relative to the Earth), simply because if they did, their spaceship would be fried by the light from even distant stars blueshifted into gamma ray wavelengths!

'Conspiracy of Light' argues that even if the transverse Doppler effect doesn't prove the complete Einsteinian package, at least it demonstrates that the Lorentz length contraction can be experimentally verified.

The authors of "Conspiracy of Light" realize that something is fundamentally wrong with modern physics but cannot work it out. They cannot because they believe SR, accepting its claims and its twisted logic uncritically. They attack the monster's tail and not its head! However, their claim for LC being experimentally verified is BS - because they base the supposed verification on Einstein's logic as exhibited in OEMBS I §§1-2; i.e. they merely presume as true what they supposedly prove by 'logic', a common fault of mathematicians.

I notice too how they emphasize the Catholic Church's love for the Big Bang - even though, in the Modern Era, the Big Bang was invented, appropriately, by Edgar Allan Poe in his poem Eureka from 1848. This popularized the word for the Gold Rush era, leading both to the California town of that name and the Eureka Stockade of 1854 in Ballaarat, Victoria. Why appropriately? Because the capitalist era, like the Big Bang, will eventually go backwards as the Big Crunch, the realization of the Chicken Little story in physics,

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chicken+little+you+tube&ru=/search?q=chicken+little+you+tube&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=chicken+little+you+tube&sc=1-23&sk=&cvid=B78424B9858E49098AD8F5076C78F1D5&view=detail&mid=702FD685E62B75E2BE22702FD685E62B75E2BE22&&mmscn=vwrc&FORM=VDRVRV

and how it is essentially a con-job (based on psychology - i.e. Marcusean & Einsteinian - as the end of the cartoon shows). Now you will reply that Einstein did not invent the Big Bang - but rather preached a static spherical universe 26,000,000 lightyears in diameter, though this claim was removed in later editions of Relativity: the Special and the General Theory. Nevertheless Einstein was forced to accede to the Big Bang because of the discovery of galactic recession by Edwin Hubble.

But I am much more happy that you now understand the meaning of the word plenum, if not its implications.

Could you clarify whether you accept the idea of a plenum (a stationary frame of reference) or whether you reject it? If I'm understanding correctly, Lorentz accepted the idea of a plenum, while Einstein returned to a Galilean perspective that motion is relative.

Aha - a useful and productive question at last, followed by a seemingly correct statement in the next sentence, including the most important highlighted portion.

The difference between Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is indeed that Lorentz invoked the plenum (stationary frame of reference = Newton's absolute space = stagnant luminiferous aether) whereas Einstein explicitly did not, overtly rejecting the plenum!

So my answer to your first sentence, a question, is clear. No! I do not accept the plenum, hence I do not accept absolute motion, therefore I do not accept the notion of LC (nor TD) as 'explanations' as to why the MMX is negative, i.e. that there are no interference fringes indicating the direction of absolute motion of the Earth. The explanation is simply this: all motion is relative (Galileo) therefore MMX will always be negative since there is NO plenum relative to which the Earth is moving - and therefore there is no LC nor TD either, hence no logical paradoxes from Galilean theory.

This simple explanation is fouled up by Einstein, because when he denies the plenum he seems to be returning to the Galilean all-motion-is-relative position. However, he is not: he calls for a "modification" of Galilean relativity, but what Einstein is doing is indulging in an extreme philosophical perversion of science. The "modification" of course comprises TD&LC, the result of the misapplication of the Voigt Doppler Equations. Einstein retains the TD&LC, despite the fact that he rejects absolute motion - since it was the belief in absolute motion that led to the inference of TD&LC in the first place! Einstein is in love with TD&LC - because these are mechanisms by which he can manipulate the believers; in this way science is subverted into subjectivist philosophy i.e. that truth is subject to motion and that truth lies only in an individual perspective since there is no external context to resolve the threatened logical paradoxes.

This in the last paragraph above is the key to grasping the implications of SR and Einstein's relativity generally. The Einsteinian believes in TD&LC, and therefore that any two objects in mutual motion undergo mutual TD&LC - an absurd a situation as could ever be thought of, and an affront to genuine scientific endeavor.

When, Jerry, you realize the superfluousness of TD&LC, understanding in consequence that the correct answer lies in Galilean relativity and a new "more complicated theory of light"** then you cease to be an Einsteinian and become a discerning critic, indeed more discerning than Richard & Joe because you already have some basic knowledge of the Einsteinian situation to begin with.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*This is the largest text in The Principle of Relativity (Dover, 1952) which outlines the mathematics-soaked SR theory in detail, the book also containing contributions by Lorentz (halfwit mathematician-physicist), Minkowski (Einstein's Jewish maths teacher), Weyl (wife was Jewish) and Arnold Sommerfeld (obtuse non-Jew).

**As even Einstein himself admits in his popular work on the subject (Relativity: the Special and the General Theory - a clear explanation that anyone can understand chapter VII p.19 - abbrev. RSGT)

The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the [Galilean] principle of relativity."

A vacuum however does not propagate light since the world 'propagate' implies a medium (i.e. the stagnant luminiferous ether) to propagate the light, hence Einstein's emphasized words are a further obfuscation as he implies that space = aether, denying the objectivity of space as entirely different to matter as I revealed above in post #118 i.e. "matter is [ONLY] in space". (Tackling Einstein's book in 1977, I tried to understand Special Relativity by reading the words of the master himself; the logical paradoxes were still there and still ignored - then I turned to the preface p. ii with the photo of the hand-clasping Einstein! At that moment I suddenly understood that his work wasn't ever intended to be science.

 

[Claude Badley]

Your "experimental verification" of SR is in post #17, merely an assertion from the negative MMX (Michelson-Morley Experiment)

As I believe we've discussed before, length contraction is experimentally verified. And furthermore, I don't see what's logically paradoxical about it.

Jerry, let me explain.

If there are two objects, e.g. spaceships, A & B in mutual motion - how is it possible, when one believes and applies SR, that each object when viewed by the other is length contracted (LCd) compared to the observer's own spaceship. It cannot be true - i.e. it is physically impossible - that A is shorter than B (A<B) from B's perspective and B<A from A's perspective! You can only assert that if you follow Hugh Everett's parallel and daughter universe theory where, with any motion whatsoever, the universe splits into two paths, one where A<B and the other where B<A.

The same two spaceships, A & B in mutual motion - how is it possible, when one believes and applies SR, that each object's clock when viewed by the other is time dilated (TDd) compared to the observer's own spaceship clock. It cannot be true - i.e. it is physically impossible - that A clock ticks slower than B clock (A<B) from B's perspective and B<A from A's perspective! Again, you can only assert that if you follow Hugh Everett's parallel and daughter universe theory where, with any motion whatsoever, the universe splits into two paths, one where A<B and the other where B<A.

So this is my point, Einstein's SR, especially where it denies the plenum (unlike Lorentzian relativity*), leads directly to logical paradoxes when applied to actual physical situations. When you realize this point - and see that Einstein's attempted resolution of the logical paradox is mere evasion - you cease to be an Einsteinian!


Yours faithfully
Claude

*Lorentzian relativity does NOT escape censure either since there is no evidence for absolute motion nor LC. This is because the LC has to apply both to the object measured and to the measuring implement. Since both would be equally contracted, this is the same as saying there is no LC whatsoever. As Friedrich Engels said in Anti-Dühring I:5 (pp. 69-70):

According to Herr Dühring time exists only through change; change in and through time does not exist. Just because time is different from change, is independent of it, it is possible to measure it by change, for measuring always requires something different from the thing to be measured.

Here Engels refers specifically to time, but the same is true of space as well. Measuring requires something different to measure the alleged LC; since Einstein and Lorentz are confusing matter with space (i.e. mixing them up ontologically), the attempt to measure LC objectively cannot be performed. Why? Because the alleged LC in the object is accompanied by the same degree of LC in the measuring implement, rendering the answer '0' in whatever scientific (i.e. non-science fiction, non-Star Trek) situation is proposed.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Your "experimental verification" of SR is in post #17, merely an assertion from the negative MMX (Michelson-Morley Experiment)

We also discussed decay of cosmic rays in the atmosphere, mostly in posts #67, #68 and #75.

If there are two objects, e.g. spaceships, A & B in mutual motion

By "mutual motion", do you mean they are traveling in parallel at the same speed? If so, then they would appear to be mutually at rest. Within that mutual frame of reference, both spaceships would appear to be the same length (unchanged from its stationary length in its own frame of reference) and each spaceship's clock would be the same as the other.

Or if you mean that they're traveling in opposite directions, then I don't see the contradiction that each would see the other as foreshortened and time dilated.

We discussed this paradox (or something similar) in posts #55 thru #64.

the correct answer lies in Galilean relativity and a new "more complicated theory of light"**

Could you explain please: what is this new, more complicated theory of light?