MOVING CLOCKS REFUTE EINSTEIN

According to Einstein's relativity, if a single moving clock successively meets multiple synchronous clocks which are stationary, observers in both frames see that the difference between the reading of the stationary clock just being met and that of the moving clock gradually increases with the number of stationary clocks met (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 synchronous clocks moving - again, in the sense defined above, the single (stationary this time) clock runs slower than the multiple (moving this time) clocks.

Consider synchronous clocks (ants in the picture) travelling with constant speed along a rectangular line and passing a single stationary clock located in the middle of one of the sides of the rectangle:

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

Einstein's relativity predicts that the single stationary clock runs slower than the moving clocks - the difference in reading between the travelling clock just being met and the single stationary clock gradually increases with the number of meetings. (This last statement is crucial to my argument - if, according to Einstein's relativity, the difference does increase, my argument is correct and any counterargument would be irrelevant.)

We have reductio ad absurdum: If the single clock is moving and the multiple clocks stationary, Einstein's relativity predicts that THE MOVING CLOCK RUNS SLOWER (in conformity with the traditional twin paradox interpretation).. If the multiple clocks are moving and the single clock stationary, Einstein's relativity predicts that THE STATIONARY CLOCK RUNS SLOWER (in contradiction to the traditional twin paradox interpretation).

In case of reductio ad absurdum, some underlying premise is false. In this case the falsehood is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

The sci.physics.relativity guru, Tom Roberts, admitting that the stationary clock "shows less elapsed time" than moving clocks (which, in terms of the twin paradox, means that the stationary twin remains younger than the travelling one):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....s/PylTyfGP5KkJ
Tom Roberts: "As the observer with the single [stationary] clock successively passes each [moving] clock in the series, he will notice that his clock shows less elapsed time than the clocks going past (comparing his clock to each clock of the series, as it passes)."

Pentcho Valev