Pentcho Valev
2014-06-20 09:06:46 UTC
Scientists have failed to notice the following absurd consequence of Einstein's special relativity: The number of objects moving with the same speed in a closed polygonal line increases with the speed, as judged from a system at rest.
Originally "length contraction" was interpreted in terms of deformation of rigid bodies in motion resulting from possible effects of the motion on intermolecular forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
"Based on that result and to bring the hypothesis of an immobile ether in accordance with the Michelson-Morley experiment, George FitzGerald in 1889 (qualitatively) and independently of him Lorentz in 1892 (already quantitatively) suggested that not only the electrostatic fields, but also the molecular forces are affected in such a way that the dimension of a body in the line of motion is less by the value v^2/(2c^2) than the dimension perpendicularly to the line of motion. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction, because all other instruments contract at the same ratio."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104032
"Both FitzGerald and Lorentz were clearly aware that the deformation hypothesis required some degree of theoretical underpinning if it were not to be dismissed as blatant trickery, or at least entirely ad hoc. Independently, they appealed to the possible effects of motion (relative to the ether) on the forces holding the molecules of rigid bodies in equilibrium, in analogy with the corresponding effect on 'electric' forces."
In Einstein's special relativity "bodies" are not the only ones that contract; distances between them contract as well. This leads to a blatant absurdity which is absent in the original FitzGerald-Lorentz interpretation where length contraction is explained in termes of affected intermolecular forces.
Let us imagine that the ants scattered on the rectangular line are initially at rest but then start travelling along the line at 87% the speed of light:
Loading Image...
According to special relativity, lengths of travelling ants and distances between them decrease twice (as judged from the system at rest). Therefore, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the system at rest, the number of travelling ants on the whole rectangular line must be twice as great as that of ants at rest. Needless to say, this last conclusion is absurd. Since it is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, we have reductio ad absurdum: the postulate is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
Originally "length contraction" was interpreted in terms of deformation of rigid bodies in motion resulting from possible effects of the motion on intermolecular forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
"Based on that result and to bring the hypothesis of an immobile ether in accordance with the Michelson-Morley experiment, George FitzGerald in 1889 (qualitatively) and independently of him Lorentz in 1892 (already quantitatively) suggested that not only the electrostatic fields, but also the molecular forces are affected in such a way that the dimension of a body in the line of motion is less by the value v^2/(2c^2) than the dimension perpendicularly to the line of motion. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction, because all other instruments contract at the same ratio."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104032
"Both FitzGerald and Lorentz were clearly aware that the deformation hypothesis required some degree of theoretical underpinning if it were not to be dismissed as blatant trickery, or at least entirely ad hoc. Independently, they appealed to the possible effects of motion (relative to the ether) on the forces holding the molecules of rigid bodies in equilibrium, in analogy with the corresponding effect on 'electric' forces."
In Einstein's special relativity "bodies" are not the only ones that contract; distances between them contract as well. This leads to a blatant absurdity which is absent in the original FitzGerald-Lorentz interpretation where length contraction is explained in termes of affected intermolecular forces.
Let us imagine that the ants scattered on the rectangular line are initially at rest but then start travelling along the line at 87% the speed of light:
Loading Image...
According to special relativity, lengths of travelling ants and distances between them decrease twice (as judged from the system at rest). Therefore, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the system at rest, the number of travelling ants on the whole rectangular line must be twice as great as that of ants at rest. Needless to say, this last conclusion is absurd. Since it is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, we have reductio ad absurdum: the postulate is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev