Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Contraction from the traveler's
perspective:  Relativists say that a
speeding muon draws two
mountains together

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/01/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    1.0   Length, distance, or distance-traveled?

    Relativists claim that a muon traveling at near-c proves the length contraction explanation of Special
    Relativity. We must first settle whether the bozos are talking about length, distance, or distance-traveled.
    Apparently, the mathematicians are talking about distance-traveled, calling it distance, and claiming that
    they have proven length contraction. What an incongruous mixture!


    2.0   Traveled or will travel?

    In addition, there are two irreconcilable physical interpretations of the muon length contraction theory and
    relativists unwittingly invoke both of them during a given presentation. One has to do with explaining
    what happened to a muon that has already traveled and reached its destination. The other situation has
    the muon still traveling towards its destination. Relativists go back and forth between these different
    scenarios and, predictably, end up covering all the bases and answering every question. Here I analyze
    them separately in order to expose this contradiction.


    3.0   Have distance, will travel

    Let's assume that there are two mountains and somewhere between them a muon traveling from Mount A
    to Mount B (Fig. 1). (We could also assume that the muon is traveling from peak to valley of one mountain
    and discuss how the mountain flattens, but this setup will be easier for the reader to understand.) In the
    context of a speeding muon, the mathematician is analyzing the distance from the last location of the
    muon to Mount B at a particular cross-section of time. He is saying that the distance in the direction of
    travel of the muon (i.e., towards Mount B) shrinks from the muon's perspective. The mathematician is
    referring to the distance the muon has yet to travel. This part of the movie hasn't happened yet. We are
    staring at a photograph of a gap between the muon and Mount B and the mathematician is predicting that
    this static distance will shrink.

    But there is already a built-in assumption. The assumption is that the muon is traveling at near-c away
    from Mount A. The muon is standing still in the last frame of the movie, but the context is that this is
    merely the last frame of our film. We are staring at the last frame of a movie that has yet to finish.

    The distance the muon has yet to travel is the static distance of Physics. The distance of Physics is the
    separation between two objects, in the instant case, between the muon and Mount B. The distance the
    muon already covered is the dynamic distance-traveled of Mathematics. This distance-traveled consists
    of a movie of the muon at successive locations with respect to Mount A (actually with respect to its now
    vanished origin) (Fig. 1). Relativists claim that the distance that shrinks is the static distance of Physics
    (between the muon and Mount B) and not the distance-traveled of Mathematics (between the muon and
    Mount A):

    " The distance to be traveled by the muon from the upper atmosphere to sea
       level is physically shorter than the same distance measured by a slower
       moving particle." [1]

    In other words, the idiot of Mathematics tells you that his equation 'predicts' that the muon will be closer
    to Mount B than warranted by its speed because this distance for some reason is now thinner. However
    he justifies the contraction of this distance with the speed the muon has traveled so far! The
    mathematician uses the distance-traveled behind the muon to predict something about the static distance
    in front of the muon. He uses the movie of the muon traveling from Mount A as the basis to make this
    argument for why the distance between the muon and Mount B in the photograph will shrink. This is really
    frightening! I mean ... suddenly you realize that you are all alone with this guy and you thought he was the
    doctor of the asylum. It turns out that he is just one of the patients.

Fig. 1   Distance (Phyz) vs. Distance-traveled (Math)
The distance between the photon and Mount B is the static distance of Physics: a gap between
TWO objects. It is the distance the particle has yet to travel. This is the distance the idiots of
relativity claim that shrinks.

Fig. 3   More frames or greater distance?
The distance they explain their
theory with, however, is the
distance the particle already
covered  from Mount A. This
mathematical 'distance-traveled'
consists of a movie of ONE
object and is measured with a
clock (vertical distance); not with
a caliper (horizontal distance).
Bad Beans Bill
suffering from special relativistic
contractions because of a little muon

Fig. 2   Distance (Phyz) vs. Distance-traveled (Math)
Relativists claim that because a particle
called a muon travels at near the speed
of light, the distances in its direction of
travel shorten. Let's spell out what the
idiots of relativity are saying so that
there is no misunderstanding. The
mathematicians are saying that if a ball
travels from one mountain to another
at near-c, the mountains come closer to
each other (Fig. 2C)
The error, of course, has its roots in the definition and misuse of the word distance.
The idiots of Mathematics confuse distance with distance-traveled (or displace-
ment). The distance of Mathematics is a movie of ONE moving object and is
measured with a clock. The distance of Physics is a photograph of the gap between
TWO objects. The distance of Mathematics is conceptually dynamic and requires a
measurement. The distance of Physics is conceptually static and does not even
require the presence of an observer.
There are only two possibilities. Either the movie of the traveled portion has more frames or
each frame of the movie represents a greater distance. The mathematicians have no
justification for either scenario. Both of them imply that the static distance between the
mountains shrunk.

    4.0   The FTL muon

    If the muon has already crashed against Mount B, the mathematicians are not predicting anything. They
    are in retrospect explaining what happened. A scientific theory is one which explains what happened and
    not one that makes predictions. Predictions are the stuff of astrologers, palm readers, and relativists.
    Therefore, this version is at least more compatible with Science than the one we just covered. Under this
    scenario, the distance that relativists are invoking is not the static separation of Physics. Here they are
    talking exclusively about the distance-traveled by the muon from Mount A to Mount B. This implies that
    the 'physical' distance (the static gap) between the mountains has suffered no change.

    The first thing that this compels relativists to concede is that the distance-traveled that they measure in
    the religion of Mathematical Physics is necessarily different than the static distance of Physics. We leave
    the qualitative distance completely out of the discussion and, if there are any valid conclusions, they will
    relate solely to the number of frames in a film.

    So what are they saying?

    Relativists are in effect proposing that their muon film does not consist of 150 frames, but of 100 (Fig. 3).
    And here there are two possibilities. Either each frame represents the same distance and some frames are
    missing (Fig. 3 A) or somehow each frame unjustifiably now represents more distance (Fig. 3 B). This last
    scenario again is a case for the psychiatrists. The implication is that static distance increased within a
    photograph.  

    What rational justification can the mathematicians offer for this physical phenomenon? The muon had to
    cover the entire distance from one mountain to the next because the mountains certainly did not come
    closer to each other. So how does a muon skip a stretch of distance and manage to come closer to Mount
    B? By what physical process? Without a physical interpretation, relativists have absolutely nothing. They
    are mathematically describing a phenomenon they still don’t understand.

    5.0   The real problem with Einstein's length contraction theory

    The fundamental problem with the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction theory is that for the last 400
    years the morons of Mathematics have modeled all of their equations with corpuscles. If there are no
    such things as particles in the entire Universe, the theoretical work accumulated in the last century at
    college think tanks and high tech accelerators is totally worthless! None of it survives! If there are no
    discrete particles in the Universe, not only does the irrational theory of Quantum Mechanics die a
    sudden death, but with it General Relativity, Special Relativity, and String Theory as well. If the
    phenomenon that the mathematical physicists call 'the muon' is not mediated by a particle, we have to
    erase the blackboards on Earth and start all over.

    The mathematicians may accuse be of being crazy. They'll argue that they have been able to describe
    what they observe and predict its behavior.

    A description alone does not constitute Science. Anyone can describe without understanding anything,
    and that is the status quo in relativity. If what Einstein's idiots are modeling with equations is not a
    particle, but rather a torque signal propagating along a rope, their physical interpretations are what we
    should discard! The mathematicians can just as well use their stupid equation with the torque signal
    model and reach completely different conclusions. It is their supernatural conclusions which are wrong!
    The problem with the muon length-contraction proposal is that the muon is not a discrete particle. For
    the last 400 years the mathematicians have been staring at a torque signal propagating along a DNA-like
    entity and calling it a particle. All the particles of the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics are different
    behavioral aspects of the twined electromagnetic rope.

    The first question a mentally sane person asks is whether the static distance between the two mountains
    will also shrink. Does the static ‘physical’ distance between two mountains decrease because a muon
    travels fast between them (Fig. 2)? Are the mathematicians going to measure the dynamic distance-
    traveled of the muon with a clock and the static distance between the clouds with a caliper? Are they
    going to apply inconsistent standards, one to measure distance-traveled by ONE object (mathematical
    distance) and another to measure the distance between TWO objects (physical distance)?

    The mathematicians answer that the static distance between the two mountains does in fact shrink:

    " the atmosphere is length contracted by a factor of 1/γ = 1/71. From the muon's
       perspective, the atmosphere is so thin that it can easily reach the ground." [2]

    In fact, this must be so if the effect is real and the mathematicians say the effect is real because otherwise
    the muon does not make it to Earth! The stupid idiots are literally saying that because an invisible particle
    travels almost at the speed of light the Moon moves closer to the Earth! This is exactly what the stupid
    morons are saying and don't let them tell you otherwise. Especially, don't let them introduce any
    equations or numbers into the discussion. There is no need for rulers, clocks, or calculators. This is
    strictly a conceptual issue.

    So let's cut the crap and go directly to the extreme case. If the two mountains are not moving with respect
    to each other, is this distance different than the distance covered by the muon from Mount A to Mount B?

    Renshaw say it is. He says that the distance experienced by the muon is shorter than the distance
    experienced by a particle sitting on one of the mountains. What the morons of Mathematics have done is
    superpose a movie on a photograph. According to their ridiculous  length contraction equation, the static
    gap separating the muon from Mount B will shorten, but the value they put in their equation is the dynamic
    distance they measured between the muon and Mount A (actually, between the muon and its starting
    location: motion is defined for a single object).  From a conceptual point of view, there may be a chance to
    shorten mathematical distance-traveled, perhaps if God waves His Holy Wand and makes a few frames of
    the film disappear. There is absolutely no chance to shorten static distance between two objects within a
    given frame of the Universal Movie! This 'physical' distance is immovable. The day that a tree moves
    closer to a rock within the photograph you're holding in your hand, you really ought to visit either the
    ophthalmologist or your psychiatrist. It borders on Down's Syndrome to say that the distance between
    the two houses in the photograph shrunk!

    The distance-traveled contraction theory of Special Relativity is also self-defeating. It violates the
    fundamental principle of this sect which states that nothing can travel faster than light:
    •        if the muon is physically closer to Mount B or crashed against it,
    •        and this decrease in distance is not a cosmetic phenomenon (for otherwise
    the mathematician claims he would not be able to detect muons at sea level)
    •        and if the static physical distance between the mountains did not shrink
    (for otherwise the mathematician needs to see a psychiatrist)
    •        then the muon is necessarily further away from Mount A the moment it
    crashes against Mount B

    But how can this be if there is no more and no less distance between the two mountains. The two
    mountains were unaffected by the muon's behavior. What changed according to relativity is the location
    of the muon with respect to Mount B. But this claim focuses the camera on Mount B without regards to
    what happened between the muon and Mount A. If the muon is farther away from Mount A at any given
    moment we are back to the distance/distance-traveled scenario.

    The bottom line is that distance-traveled has nothing to do with the real world. It is a convenient
    technique to quantify ‘distance’ using length. The mathematicians have lost sight of this and this is the
    reason they reach irrational conclusions. They will not be able to escape the predicament that
    something somewhere moved faster than the speed of light! This is not an issue of measurement. It is
    strictly a conceptual issue.
A
B

    a.   Contraction from the traveler's perspective:

    This page:   Relativists say that a speeding muon draws two mountains together