How Long Will Einstein's Inconsistency Last?

Einsteinians take Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate for granted and deduce that moving clocks tick slower than stationary ones. Actually no such conclusion can be made, no matter whether the postulate is true or false - the deduction is invalid. What the postulate (together with the principle of relativity) VALIDLY entails is that moving clocks tick both slower and faster than stationary ones - an absurd conclusion showing that the postulate is false and that Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2..._rectangle.png

Scenario 1: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY.

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single MOVING ant is travelling along the polygonal line, and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Scenario 2: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line.

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the clock of a single STATIONARY ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency and should be immediately discarded:

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 theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev

Paralyzing absurdity in Einstein schizophrenic world:

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. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

That is, all along, the traveling twin observes himself aging faster than his sedentary brother, but, as the traveling twin turns around for a very brief period, "strangeness occurs" and his distant sedentary brother suddenly gets very old and dies. Finally, although the turnaround's spooky action at a distance is crucial, it can be ignored in the calculations.

Absurdities of this kind cannot be fought but they may help one realize that science is long dead:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.7.html
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw4HqOAEzpU
Neil deGrasse Tyson (1:09): "If you are moving fast through space, your time will tick more slowly, as observed by others."

However special relativity predicts that, as observed by yourself, your time will tick FASTER than the time of others (who are not moving):

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, 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."

So special relativity predicts no real difference in the clocks' readings and Einsteinians are forced to introduce the camouflage called, in the quotation above, "enough strangeness".

Pentcho Valev