EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : CLOCKS RUN BOTH FAST AND SLOW

According to Einstein's relativity, if a single moving clock successively passes multiple synchronized clocks which are stationary, observers in both frames see that the difference between the reading of the stationary clock just being passed and that of the moving clock increases with the number of stationary clocks passed (in this sense the moving clock runs slower than the stationary clocks):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out through space. The moving clock agrees with the reading of the leftmost clock--my wris****ch--as it passes by. However when it passes the rightmost, it now reads much less:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ty/clocks..gif

Einstein's relativity also says that the single clock can be stationary and the multiple synchronized clocks moving - again, in the sense defined above, the single (stationary) clock runs slower than the multiple (moving) clocks.

It is easy to show that the contradiction is real (not apparent) - in Einstein's relativity, stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks. The theory is an inconsistency:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theorys language and its negation."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: "The figure shows the bare essentials of the moving clock and all the other clocks spread out through space. The moving clock agrees with the reading of the leftmost clock--my wris****ch--as it passes by. However when it passes the rightmost, it now reads much less:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ty/clocks..gif
...there is no absolute fact as to whether the moving clock slows with respect to my clocks; or whether my clocks slow with respect to the moving clock."

That is, according to Einstein's relativity, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at high speed ages both faster and slower than them:

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png

Pentcho Valev

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Let multiple synchronous clocks move with the same speed along a closed polygonal line, as the ants in this pictu

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png

If point B is in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon, the single stationary clock located there runs both faster and slower than the moving clocks (according to Einstein's inconsistency).

Pentcho Valev

The sci.physics.relativity guru, Tom Roberts, admitting that a single stationary clock runs slower (in the sense defined below) than multiple moving clocks:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....s/POYiOnmvcekJ

Let multiple synchronous clocks move with the same speed along a closed polygonal line, as the ants in this pictu

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames...e_portrait.png

According to Tom Roberts (and this is a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate), a single stationary clock compares to any moving clock going past as having less elapsed time from the previous comparison - in this sense it runs SLOWER than the moving clocks. In the original twin-paradox scenario, however, the stationary clock runs FASTER than the moving clocks (which is also a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate). Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

No such "strangeness" occurs during the turning-around period so, according to Einstein's relativity, both A and B end up older (the theory is an inconsistency):

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein 1918 contradicts Einstein 1905:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, by A. Einstein, June 30, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

This corresponds to "partial process 2" in Einstein's 1918 paper. During it, the stationary clock (U1) "runs indeed at a slower pace" than the moving clock (U2). In 1918 this is "more than compensated" during "partial process 3" (turn-around when the traveller experiences acceleration or "gravitational potential"):

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v [in the system K'], runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting [in the system K'] clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3."

That is, in 1905 the traveller runs slower as it moves from A to B. In 1918 the traveller runs faster as it moves from A to B, "but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period" to make the stationary clock end up with more time elapsed:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

Pentcho Valev