ABSURDITIES IN EINSTEIN'S 1905 ARTICLE

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 us pay special attention to this:

"...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..."

Why? Time dilation is mutual isn't it? If I say that, according to special relativity, the clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, where am I wrong?

I wouldn't be wrong of course. Special relativity is an inconsistency that makes contradictory predictions. But there is a subtlety that allows Einstein to camouflage the contradiction: the retardation of a clock can only be calculated if that clock finds itself consecutively at different points belonging to the other clock's system. In Einstein's scenario, the moving clock finds itself consecutively at point A and point B (points belonging to the stationary clock's system), and Einstein gloriously calculates that it lags behind by tv^2/2c^2.

And since in Einstein's scenario the stationary clock does not find itself consecutively at different points belonging to the moving clock's system, its retardation cannot be calculated. Einstein's implicit suggestion is: "If the retardation of the stationary clock cannot be calculated, forget about it!" Einsteinians have been strictly following this suggestion for more than a century.

Let there be a large number of clocks moving in the closed polygonal line, one a short distance after the other. The single stationary clock (at B) is placed at the middle of one of the sides of the polygon and its reading is compared with the readings of the moving clocks which pass it at short intervals.

In this scenario the stationary clock does find itself consecutively at different points belonging to the moving clock's system and its retardation CAN be calculated. For instance, if both the stationary clock and a moving clock read zero as they meet, and if the next moving clock reads 5 as it reaches the stationary clock, and if the two moving clocks are synchronized, the stationary clock will read, say, 4 as it meets the second moving clock.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency making contradictory predictions.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

In terms of the twin paradox, the scenario offered by Einstein in his 1905 article can be described in the following way. As the travelling twin moves in a closed polygonal line, his clock can be checked against two or more clocks belonging to the sedentary twin's system, and this allows Einstein to calculate that the travelling twin returns younger than the sedentary twin.. In contrast, the scenario prevents the sedentary twin's clock from being checked against two or more travelling clocks, and Einstein can safely say anything about the age of the sedentary twin (he found it profitable to say that the sedentary twin proves older at the end of the travelling twin's journey).

Let us consider a scenario in which a large number of travelling twins (ants) move in a rectangular line, one a short distance after the other:

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

We can imagine a single sedentary twin (ant) placed at the middle of one of the sides of the rectancle, his clock being constantly checked against the travelling twins' clocks which pass it at short intervals. In this case special relativity calculates that the sedentary twin's clock runs slower, and accordingly that the sedentary twin remains younger. Conclusion: Special relativity is an inconsistency.

The above picture reveals another contradiction in special relativity. The theory predicts that, as the speed of the travelling twins (ants) increases, their length and the distance between them decrease (as judged from the sedentary twin's system). Accordingly, insofar as the length of the sides of the rectangle is fixed in the sedentary twin's system, the number of travelling twins (ants) on the whole rectangular line must increase (as judged from the sedentary twin's system). Needless to say, this last implication is absurd.

Pentcho Valev

Time dilation can only be demonstrated if the "slow" clock consecutively meets two or more "fast" clocks:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
"How can I find out what the moving clock reads an hour from now when it is no longer anywhere near me? Here's one procedu I set up many clocks at rest with respect to me throughout space. Then, one hour later, as the moving clock passes one of those clocks, a friend notes what the moving clock reads and what the local resting clock reads. From my friend's report, I can figure out whether the moving clock has slowed or not. 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. So I judge it to have slowed."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ty/clocks..gif

In the above scenario the moving clock consecutively meets stationary clocks "spread out through space" - in this case Einstein's relativity says the moving clock is slow. Essentially this is the scenario used by Einstein in his 1905 article.

In my previous posts I described a scenario in which the stationary clock consecutively meets moving clocks - then Einstein's relativity predicts the stationary clock is slow. Einsteinians find such scenarios too dangerous and never think of them:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev