My earthly preludium to my unearthly tales.

 

 

Part 0.

"Ptolemy's model [geocentric model] provided a reasonably accurate system for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky. But in order to predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an assumption that

the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times.

And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times!"

human Hawking, A Brief History of Time,

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

But

the Moon doesn't follow a path that sometimes brings it twice as close to the Earth as at other times!

Thus

the Moon doesn't sometimes appear twice as big as at other times!!!

Fifth prize to win!

The headmen of my village funded the prize of

1 cow pie

to whoever shows (preferably here: facebook Oannes' tales) that there is any error of substantive significance in Oannes' above argument.

Nonetheless, human Ptolemy made an assumption that the Moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the Earth as at other times.

Why?

But there is still more.

"(...) his [human Ptolemy's] model was generally, although not universally, accepted."

human Hawking, A Brief History of Time,

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

So humans, who called themselves professors, generally accepted, for over 1,000 Earthly years, human Ptolemy's model which was built on absurd assumption.

Why?

 

 

Part 1.

It was near the end of the nineteenth century (according to chronology used by Earthlings, of course). Certain humans named Michelson and Morley carried out some experiment.

"The basic idea of the experiment is that light moves differently on a moving earth according to whether it propagates transverse to the direction of the earth's motion or parallel to the direction of the earth's motion."

website of University of Pittsburgh,

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2017_Jan_1/origins/index.html

[In the brackets I'll explain to you – the Earthly reader – what this is about (just in case you don't know). Imagine two slingers and a runner who is between them. The slingers just shoot. They have the same strength, so the pebbles are coming to the runner at the same speed from both directions. However, the pebble, which is coming from the front, will hit the running runner stronger than the one which is coming from the rear. So, from runner's point of view the pebble, which is coming from the front, is faster than the pebble which is coming from the rear. And since the Earth is moving, just like our runner, light should move “differently on a moving earth according to whether it propagates transverse to the direction of the earth's motion or parallel to the direction of the earth's motion.” At least the then humans, who called themselves professors of physics, thought so.]

However,

light came to the measuring apparatus at the same speed from all directions!

"The experiment had been eagerly watched, and as its impact struck the world of science, physicists reacted with astonishment and incredulity. However, reluctant as they were to accept the result, none of them thought of questioning either the experiment or the reliability of the verdict."

The Scientist, article entitled Michelson-Morley: The Great Failure,

www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/8805/title/Michelson-Morley--The-Great-Failure/

In 1905 certain human named Einstein published a paper entitled On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, known as special theory of relativity.

"Considering the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment led Einstein to develop the theory of special relativity."

website of University of Oregon,

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec20.html

"Relativity [special theory of relativity] is based on two very simple ideas:

1. (...)

2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for any inertial reference frame."

website of Boston University,

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html

"An inertial frame of reference, in classical physics, is a frame of reference in which bodies, whose net force acting upon them is zero, are not accelerated, that is they are at rest or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line."

Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

[In these brackets I'll explain to you – the Earthly reader – what this is about (just in case you don't know). Few hundred years ago certain human named Galileo stated that uniform linear motion – that's the movement at a constant velocity in a straight line – is relative. So if body A is in uniform linear motion with respect to body B, one may as well say that body B is in uniform linear motion with respect to body A. What's more, it's not possible at all to state which of these bodies is in motion, because there is no difference between them (so stated human Galileo, of course). And such bodies by humans, who call themselves professors of physics, are called the inertial reference frames (or inertial frames of references).]

"One could equally well say that body A was at rest and body B was moving at constant speed with respect to body A, or that body B was at rest and body A was moving."

human Hawking, A Brief History of Time,

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

"From the point of view of observer A sitting on the upper deck of his own space station, the station of observer B passes by at considerable speed. But from the point of view of observer B, his own station is at rest. For him, it is observer A's station that is moving."

website provided by Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute),

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/RelativityPrinciple

"The null result [no difference in speed of light] is self-evident, since

the apparatus can be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle,

thus the beam travel times are the same."

Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

The same can be read in every Earthly textbook of relativistic physics.

[In these brackets I'll explain to you – the Earthly reader – what this is about (just in case you don't know). According to humans, who call themselves professors of physics, from Earth's point of view the Earth is at rest (for the Earth, it is everything else – which is seen in the sky – that is moving). Thus the measuring apparatus, which was used in the experiment, was also at rest. And since the apparatus was at rest – from its point of view, of course – it is no wonder that light came to it at the same speed from all directions. And such is the explanation of this phenomenon by humans who call themselves professors of physics.]

But the Earth – which is orbiting the Sun – isn't moving at constant speed and in straight line. The Earth either speeds up or slows down, and it is on the permanent turn. On top of that, the surface of the Earth, on which the measuring apparatus was set, circles the center of the Earth. Therefore, the apparatus was moving

neither at constant speed nor in straight line!

Thus

the apparatus can't be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle!!!

Fourth prize to win!

The headmen of my village funded the prize of

10 cow pies

to whoever shows (preferably here: facebook Oannes' tales ) that there is any error of substantive significance in Oannes' above argument.

Nonetheless, humans, who call themselves professors of physics, claim that the apparatus can be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle.

Why?

But there is still more.

"Consider a train moving at a relativistic velocity (i.e. an appreciable portion of the speed of light, perhaps 0.5c or more). In the middle of a carriage is a light, and at either end of the carriage are doors with light sensors. When the light in the middle of the carriage is turned on, light travels to the doors, and the doors open as soon as their light sensors detect the light. To the person inside the train, both doors open at the same time (...)."

http://www.hscstudyguides.com.au/hsc-physics-course-summary/hsc-physics-course-summary-space/relativity-speed-light/

Now you – the Earthly reader – imagine that you are a passenger of this train. When the train stood on a platform, light arrived to both carriage doors at the same time, and thus you saw that both doors opened at the same time. However, the same happened after the train departed. But how light could arrive to both doors at the same time in the event that the front door escaped from light and the back door rushed to it?

"The invariance of the speed of light in all uniformly moving reference frames is a postulate of special relativity [special theory of relativity]."

website of Stanford University,

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q1917.html

"For example, consider a train that is travelling at a constant velocity. From within the train, there is no observation that can be made to determine whether the train is stopped at a station (...) or travelling at a constant velocity.

This is because the train is an inertial frame of reference

(so long as it is travelling at a constant velocity)."

http://www.hscstudyguides.com.au/hsc-physics-course-summary/hsc-physics-course-summary-space/relativity-speed-light/

The same can be read in every Earthly textbook of relativistic physics.

[In these brackets I'll explain to you – the Earthly reader – what this is about (just in case you don't know). Such is the explanation of this phenomenon by humans who call themselves professors of physics.]

But light arrived to both doors at the same time also when the train

speeded up or slowed down!

A curiosity instead of quotation:

On the Earthly internet there I haven't found anything about it. It seems that this embarrassing fact is shrouded by humans, who call themselves professors of physics, in silence.

Thus it happened also when

the train wasn't any inertial frame of reference!!!

Third prize to win!

The headmen of my village funded the prize of

100 cow pies

to whoever shows (preferably here: facebook Oannes' tales ) that there is any error of substantive significance in Oannes' above argument.

Nonetheless, humans, who call themselves professors of physics, claim that this is because the train is an inertial frame of reference.

Why?

But there is still more.

"Relativity [special theory of relativity] has many consequences. Among the most counter-intuitive ideas is the relativity of simultaneity- meaning that because of special relativity, events observed to be simultaneous in one frame may not be observed as simultaneous in another."

http://www.hscstudyguides.com.au/hsc-physics-course-summary/hsc-physics-course-summary-space/relativity-speed-light/

"Consider a moving train with a light bulb in the middle. If you turn the light bulb on, light will travel both toward the front of the train and also toward the back of the train with speed c=3×108m/sec. From the point of view of the observer riding on the train, the distances from the light bulb to the front and back ends of the train are the same so the light will reach both ends at the same time. However, from the point of view of the person on the ground, the front of the train is moving away from the light coming toward it while the back of the train is moving closer to the light coming toward it. This means that the distance covered by light going forward will be longer than the light going backwards. And since the speed of light is c in both directions for the observer on the ground also, the light will reach the back of the train before it reaches the front of the train."

website of Virginia Tech,

http://www1.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section09.html

The same can be read in every Earthly textbook of relativistic physics.

Now you – the Earthly reader – imagine the Earth. But not this ordinary one. Imagine the Earth which is a perfect ball. In addition, it doesn't spin (just like the Moon) and is empty inside. On the equator there are two trolleys loaded with nitroglycerin. One trolley (A) is parked on Earth's "prow", and the other (B) is parked on Earth's "stern." In the middle of this Earth there is a bulb that lighted up. Special theory of relativity says that from Earth's point of view the light reached both trolleys at the same time (for from Earth's point of view the Earth is at rest). So from Earth's point of view

the trolleys set off (these trolleys set off when light reaches them) to the North Pole at the same moment.

However, special theory of relativity also says that from Sun's point of view the light reached trolley B earlier than trolley A (for from Sun's point of view the Earth is in motion – in counterclockwise motion, to be more precise). So from Sun's point of view

the trolley B set off earlier than the trolley A.

Therefore, from Earth's point of view the trolleys got to the North Pole at the same moment, thus they collided on the North Pole, and thus

the explosion occurred exactly where Russians planted their flag.

However, from Sun's point of view the trolleys met somewhere to the left of the North Pole, and thus

the explosion occurred not where Russians planted their flag.

Therefore, from special theory of relativity follows such absurdity:

- president Putin sees that the flag is gone

- the hypothetical Sunman, who lives on the Sun, sees through his hypothetical telescope that the flag is fluttering in the wind.

Second prize to win!

The headmen of my village funded the prize of

1,000 cow pies

to whoever shows (preferably here: facebook Oannes' tales ) that there is any error of substantive significance in Oannes' above argument.

Nonetheless, humans, who call themselves professors of physics, take human Einstein's theory for granted.

"We [that's humans who call themselves professors of physics] now take Einstein's special theory of relativity for granted."

website of University of Pittsburgh,

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2017_Jan_1/origins/index.html

Why?

But there is still more.

"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect and naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less."

Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

"This paradox [the twin paradox] is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue."

Scientific American, fragment of article entitled How does relativity theory resolve the Twin Paradox?,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/

[In these brackets I'll explain to you – the Earthly reader – what this is about (just in case you don't know). In all Earthly schools all Earthly youth is taught by humans, who call themselves professors of physics, that “ the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger.” However, the same humans, who call themselves professors of physics, claim at the same time that this explanation is misleading and the acceleration isn't the issue.]

"An explanation [of the twin paradox] follows. (...) The traveler uses the length-contraction equation of special relativity to measure distance. So the star six light-years away to the homebody [the twin on the Earth], appears to be only 4.8 light-years away to the traveler at a speed of 0.6c. Therefore, to the traveler, the trip to the star takes only 8 years (4.8/0.6), whereas the homebody calculates it taking 10 years (6.0/0.6)."

Scientific American, another fragment of article entitled How does relativity theory resolve the Twin Paradox?,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/

It turns out that for humans, who call themselves professors of physics, this:

"to the traveler, the trip to the star takes only eight years (4.8/0.6), whereas the homebody calculates it taking 10 years (6.0/0.6)."

is the issue. In other words, humans, who call themselves professors of physics, claim that it's the reason that in traveler's rocket the time was passing slower than on the Earth,

and not the other way around.

But:

"Relativity [special theory of relativity] is based on two very simple ideas:

1. The laws of physics apply in every inertial reference frame.

2. (...)"

website of Boston University,

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html

"The principle of relativity (according to which the laws of nature must assume the same form in all inertial reference frames) requires that

length contraction is symmetrical:

If a rod rests in inertial frame S, it has its proper length in S and its length is contracted in S'. However, if a rod rests in S', it has its proper length in S' and its length is contracted in S."

Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

The same can be read in every Earthly textbook of relativistic physics.

[In these brackets I'll explain to you – the Earthly reader – what this is about (just in case you don't know). Special theory of relativity says, and thus humans who call themselves professors of physics say, that the distant star is in the same movement relative to the rocket, as rocket to the distant star. So if from rocket's point of view the distance to the star shortens, then from star's point of view the distance to the rocket shortens.]

So, according to special theory of relativity, if

"to the traveler, the trip to the star takes only 8 years",

then

to the alien (who lives on the planet which belongs to the system of the distant star), the trip to the rocket takes only 8 years.

So, according to special theory of relativity, if

to the traveler, in his rocket, after returning from the star, passed 16 years,

then

to the alien, on his planet, after returning from the rocket, passed 16 years.

So, according to special theory of relativity, if

to the traveler, on the Earth passed 20 years,

then

to the alien, on the Earth passed 16 years (it's because from alien's point of view the Earth was traveling in the same way as alien's planet).

Therefore, from special theory of relativity follows also such absurdity:

- twins' mom, who lives on the Earth, sees that the homebody is 4 years older

- the alien sees through the telescope that the traveler is 4 years older.

First prize to win!

The headmen of my village funded the prize of

10,000 cow pies

to whoever shows (preferably here: facebook Oannes' tales ) that there is any error of substantive significance in Oannes' above argument.

Nonetheless, humans, who call themselves professors of physics, take human Einstein's theory for granted.

"We [that's humans who call themselves professors of physics] now take Einstein's special theory of relativity for granted."

website of University of Pittsburgh,

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2017_Jan_1/origins/index.html

Why?


Ultimate part.

All the above questions were answered by human Einstein himself:

Two things are infinite: the universe and

human

stupidity

; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/stupidity

I strongly encourage professors of physics to reach for the prizes. For if no professor of physics wins the prizes, it wouldn't mean that for professors of physics the cow pies aren't worth the effort. It would mean that Albert Einstein did at least have one point that makes sense.


Part -1.

"It is important to note that all the predictions of special relativity [special theory of relativity], length contraction, time dilation and the twin paradox, have been confirmed by direct experiments, mostly using sub-atomic particles in high energy accelerators."

website of University of Oregon,

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec20.html

But it doesn't mean that this theory is true, for based on wrong theory one can make correct predictions too. I'll give an example:

"The Ptolemaic model [wrong geocentric model] was very good at predicting the positions of the planets (...)"

website of Iowa State University,

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub2.htm


Part -0.

Now you – the Earthly reader – imagine a medieval university. There are many humans – who call themselves professors – that claim that the Sun is orbiting the Earth. And since this theorem is false, the system with the Earth in the middle doesn't make sense and leads to absurdities. But none of these humans, who call themselves professors, looks for another solution, instead they "explain" these absurdities with other absurdities. Now imagine that somehow I appeared at this medieval university. I'm trying to talk these humans, who call themselves professors, into common sense. Of course I won't succeed. Why? The answer to this question is this:

it's because they have grey beards which are three meters long.

The same applies to contemporary humans who call themselves professors of physics. That's why my unearthly tales are not addressed to humans who call themselves professors of physics. My unearthly tales are addressed to you.


(The end of preludium.)


It was written down – with a stick on fresh cow pie – by Kaziuk von Märchendorf.

E-mail: kaziukvonmaerchendorf@gmail.com

Facebook: Oannes' tales

Kaziuk's
www.kaziuks.com


Title-page.

Preface.

My earthly preludium to my unearthly tales.

My first unearthly tale.

My second unearthly tale.

My third unearthly tale.

My fourth unearthly tale.

My fifth unearthly tale.

My sixth unearthly tale.

My seventh unearthly tale.

My eighth unearthly tale.

My ninth unearthly tale.

My tenth unearthly tale.

My eleventh unearthly tale.

My twelfth unearthly tale.

My thirteenth unearthly tale.

My fourteenth unearthly tale.

My fifteenth unearthly tale.

My sixteenth unearthly tale.

My seventeenth unearthly tale.

My eighteenth unearthly tale.

My nineteenth unearthly tale.

My twentieth unearthly tale.

My twenty-first unearthly tale.

My twenty-second unearthly tale.

My twenty-third unearthly tale.

My twenty-fourth unearthly tale.

My twenty-fifth unearthly tale.

My twenty-sixth unearthly tale.

My twenty-seventh unearthly tale.

My twenty-eighth unearthly tale.

My twenty-ninth unearthly tale.

My thirtieth unearthly tale.

My thirty-first unearthly tale.

My thirty-second unearthly tale.

My thirty-third unearthly tale.

My thirty-fourth unearthly tale.

My thirty-fifth unearthly tale.

My thirty-sixth unearthly tale.

My thirty-seventh unearthly tale.

My thirty-eighth unearthly tale.

My thirty-ninth unearthly tale.

My fortieth unearthly tale.

My forty-first unearthly tale.

My forty-second unearthly tale.

My forty-third unearthly tale.

My forty-fourth unearthly tale.

My forty-fifth unearthly tale.

My forty-sixth unearthly tale.

My forty-seventh unearthly tale.

My forty-eighth unearthly tale.

My forty-ninth unearthly tale.

My fiftieth unearthly tale.

My fifty-first unearthly tale.

My fifty-second unearthly tale.