This lecture is a complement for the discussions in the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity.

This lecture is valid not only for Tom Robert, but also for people dead or alive like Einstein, Langevin, Feyman, Lemaitre, Dirac, Hawking, Reeves,Taylor, Wheeler, Throops, Andersen, etc...and nearly one century of physicists all in error about " relativity ".

These guys (even Nobel-Prized!) really think or have thougth that there is no logical problems in SR.

But it not not true at all, there is a big problem, the theory is physically impossible !!! In spite of the fact that Einstein is the worldwide symbol of "intelligence".

LOGIC LECTURE

First I must say that this topic contains also ideas which come from my proper works on logic, and thus the copyright mention of my site applies.

The goal of the logic as an independant science is to study the connections between logical statements only, without taking into account if the logical statements are true or not in the science (like physics) which use them.

For example if I say: [the atomic mass of oxygen is 14], the logical statement is not true in physics, but logic is able to manage with it to do useful things.

For example logic is able to study and to see which connections exist between such logical statements and others and to represent the connection with a truth table.

For example in the following connection obtained with a mathematical reasoning between the mathematical statement A: [x=1] and B: [xx=1] we have :[x=1] then [xx=1] and the truth table is:

___A__B__A-then-B

1)__0__0__0__1_0

2)__0__1__0__1_1

3)__1__0__1__0_0

4)__1__1__1__1_1

And with the signature [1,1,0,1] which means that only the logical connections

between truth values (1 or 0 that is to say true or not) are those of the

lines 1), 2), 4).

For two logical statements there are only 16 possible logical connexions(or

operators) whose most well-known one are: no, or ,nor ,xor , and , nand, xor,

<> , > , < ,... with a few degenerated.

For example the truth table of or is:

A_B_A_or_B

0_0__0_0_0

0_1__0_1_1

1_0__1_1_0

1_1__1_1_1

with the signature [0,1,1,1] which means that the connection between the truth values A=0 and B=0 doesn't exist.

For example the logical statements [Einstein is right] , [Einstein is wrong] are connected by the XOR logical connection.

For three logical statements, there are 256 possible logical connections or operators and many more for more logical statements.

SR "LOGIC"

In SR the main logical statement is the following:

[All the inertial frames are equivalent to study nature, in the sense that there is no way to differentiate the frames by physical internal means]= A

But logic reasoning permits to conclude immediately from it that the speed of light must be isotropic in all the inertial frames, because the Maxwell equations are equally valid by hypothesis. If not the frames would not be equivalent. We have built by logic the new logical statement:

[The speed of light is isotropic in all the inertial frames]=B

And it is easy to understand that this new logical statement B is connected to A by the following truth table(the same as above for "then"):

___A__B__A_then_B

1)__0__0__0__1__0

2)__0__1__0__1__1

3)__1__0__1__0__0

4)__1__1__1__1__1

which means with the signature [1, 1, 0, 1] , that only the truth values A=1

and B=0 are logically impossible. I hope here that it is clear for everybody that if the PoR is physically true, the speed of light MUST BE isotropic and thus that this connection of truth values is not allowed.

BUT and this is VERY IMPORTANT, there is no logical absurdity to affirm that

the PoR may be physically false even if the speed of light isotropy is physically true.

Logic is not able alone to decide in the present case of the truth value of the logical statement A, because there is no more than a "then" logical operator between A and B.

Logic would be able to tell more if B would be connected to A by an "is equivalent to" operator.

In this case the isotropy of the speed of light would be a proof of PoR. But that needs to derive the PoR from the isotropy of the speed of light.

But the reader may try to derive the PoR with it, I know from the beginning that he will never be able to successfully obtain it.

But now AS the logical calculation of a new logical statement [The lorentz's transformations exist between two any inertial frames]=C, which is contained in the 1905 paper of Einstein DOESN'T PERMIT to derive the PoR, this logical statement is only connected to the PoR=A, the isotropy of the light speed=B, and the [ clocks are synchronized when Tb-Ta = T'a-Tb]= D logical statement by a "then" logical operator.

The reader must try here as an exercise to derived the PoR even from the whole D and C and B and thus to see that it is impossible. The PoR is not in the LTE !!!

But the isotropy of the speed of light (= B) and the clock synchronisation method (= D) may be derived from the LTE (= C).

In this case the reader must admit that the logical structure of the 1905 paper of Einstein has the following logical connection: [A then B]and [(B and D) <> C] which simply means that the LTE are equivalent to the synchronization method and the isotropy of the light speed and that the isotropy of the light speed may be derived from the PoR, that is say the whole of what has been said.

But as the logical truth table of the logical connections between the SR

logical statements is:

___A_B_D_C_[A_then_B]_and_[(B_and_D)<>C]

1)__0_0_0_0__0__1___0__1___0___0__0_1_0

2)__0_0_0_1__0__1___0__0___0___0__0_0_1

3)__0_0_1_0__0__1___0__1___0___0__1_1_0

4)__0_0_1_1__0__1___0__0___0___0__1_0_1

5)__0_1_0_0__0__1___1__1___1___0__0_1_0

6)__0_1_0_1__0__1___1__0___1___0__0_0_1

7)__0_1_1_0__0__1___1__0___1___1__1_0_0

8)__0_1_1_1__0__1___1__1___1___1__1_1_1

9)__1_0_0_0__1__0___0__0___0___0__0_1_0

10)_1_0_0_1__1__0___0__0___0___0__0_0_1

11)_1_0_1_0__1__0___0__0___0___0__1_1_0

12)_1_0_1_1__1__0___0__0___0___0__1_0_1

13)_1_1_0_0__1__1___1__1___1___0__0_1_0

14)_1_1_0_1__1__1___1__0___1___0__0_0_1

15)_1_1_1_0__1__1___1__0___1___1__1_0_0

16)_1_1_1_1__1__1___1__1___1___1__1_1_1

The reader must see immediately (line 8) that the PoR may be physically false, even if the light speed is isotropic, even the Lorentz's transformations are true and even if the synchronization method of Einstein has been applied !!!

The PoR is not contained in the LTE and thus even if the reader lose his time with the harebrained scheme to "solve" the twin paradox with the Lorentz' transformations alone= relativity of the lack of synchronism of the clocks, the logically possible physical absurdities (twin and barn and pole paradoxes) obtained by etherists by logical combinations between the LTE and the PoR don't disappear.

It is the same as [1=2] and [2=1] implies [1=1]

The relativistic reader does if 1=1 then 2=2 and he is right. Etherians do: if 1=2 then 2=4, but as 2=4 is physically not true, 1=2 is also not true.

That is to say, the PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY IS NOT TRUE

AND MORE WHAT DOES relativistic readers IS TO LOSE THEIR TIME.

I hope that somebody is able to understant that.

[ return ]