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