MOVING CLOCKS DON'T RUN SLOWLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly"

They don't. Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true, "Moving clocks run slowly" still remains a false statement. Here is Einstein's fundamental but invalid (the conclusion does not follow from the premises) argument:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Of course, Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs more slowly than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slowly" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slowly, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slowly, that is, travel into the future is possible.

Referring to the gullible world, Einstein once said: "I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious":

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

Pentcho Valev

As shown in the picture below, according to Einstein's relativity, a single MOVING clock shows less time elapsed than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's 1905 postulates entail that this time the STATIONARY clock shows less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that moving clocks run both slower and faster than stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the travelling twin returns both younger and older than his stationary brother.

We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

The picture has been taken from this site:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html

Let us now imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY:

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

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling 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.

Let us change the scenario: the multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock 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 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

Length contraction is even more idiotic than time dilation. It follows from Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers (Einsteinians believe that sometimes the trapped objects are compressed but in other cases there is no compression at all):

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...arage_irf1.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

It is easy to see that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - they even teach that length contraction is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....s/xTVWGUcNRpYJ
Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."

Yet Lawrence Krauss seems to disagree with Tom Roberts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQTNoNZ3_PY
Penis contraction by Lawrence Krauss

Pentcho Valev

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..."

This is a lie, John Gribbin. Even if the speed of light were the same for all inertial observers (actually it isn't), "moving clocks run slow" remains an invalid conclusion (does not follow from the premise). What validly follows is:

Moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system, and stationary clocks run slow, as judged from the moving system.

John Gribbin has been brainwashing the world for many years and is now a high priest in Einsteiniana:

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and...y-2769610.html
Brian Clegg: "Generally speaking I am in total agreement with Dr Gribbin on all matters scientific (it is dangerous to do otherwise, as he is surely the head of the UK science writing equivalent of Cosa Nostra)..."

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/...nphys3392.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty2AauNUaYY

Pentcho Valev