Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:19:23 -0600

The Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox presented here of course constitutes a
proof by reduction to the absurd that SR is nonsense, but SR undoubtedly has
a way of 'cooking the books' to convince themselves the absurd is a fact of
nature.

It is named in part for Melvin Schwarts because of something really stupid
he said in his excellent (as far as I can tell) book, "Principles of
Electrodynamics", available from those horrible promulgators of historical
foundations, Dover Publications.

In the book he argued that there could be no contraction transverse to the
line of movement because if identical twins collided upright at high speed
John could see Jim's head plow into his belly, and Jim could see John's head
plow into his belly.

The argument was fine as is but ignored the obvious, which perhaps I posted
here sometime or other: let two identical boxers pass each other at high
velocity, 'east' and 'west', both with their heads to the 'east' and feet to
the 'west' and each facing a direction that would allow them to throw a
straight punch at the other when their feet are coincident. John would see
his fist pass over Jim's head and Jim's fist plow into his belly, but Jim
would see his fist pass over John's head and John's fist plow into his
belly.

Schwartz was absolutely correct that his gedanken experiment disproved
transverse contraction, and the obvious extention has proved parallel
contraction absurd.

There is a way to remove the necessity of punch throwing in the paradox
(reduction to the absurd of SR).

Let identical twins approach each other at high speed, gamma = 2.1 or so,
each with their heads in the 'east' and feet in the 'west' along the
direction of movement, and both tilted somewhat to the 'north' side of the
direction of movement. Let their feet collide. John feels Jim's head crash
into his testicles and Jim feels John's head crash into his testicles.

Ouch! Not just for John and Jim but for SR, which is thus shown to be
nonsense and proved invalid by reduction to the absurd.

SR is consistent?

You betcha! Consistent idioocy!

eleaticus

Relevant Pages

  • Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... proof by reduction to the absurd that SR is nonsense, ... John could see Jim's head plow into his belly, and Jim could see John's head ... his fist pass over Jim's head and Jim's fist plow into his belly, ... (reduction to the absurd of SR). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... proof by reduction to the absurd that SR is nonsense, ... John could see Jim's head plow into his belly, and Jim could see John's head ... his fist pass over Jim's head and Jim's fist plow into his belly, ... (reduction to the absurd of SR). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... > proof by reduction to the absurd that SR is nonsense, ... > John could see Jim's head plow into his belly, and Jim could see John's head ... > his fist pass over Jim's head and Jim's fist plow into his belly, ... > (reduction to the absurd of SR). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... > proof by reduction to the absurd that SR is nonsense, ... > John could see Jim's head plow into his belly, and Jim could see John's head ... > his fist pass over Jim's head and Jim's fist plow into his belly, ... > (reduction to the absurd of SR). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... > proof by reduction to the absurd that SR is nonsense, ... > John could see Jim's head plow into his belly, and Jim could see John's head ... > his fist pass over Jim's head and Jim's fist plow into his belly, ... > (reduction to the absurd of SR). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)