Summary Statements - 11 of X - Comments on the Paradoxes in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity
There are logical contradictions in the special theory of relativity (esp. the “twin paradox”). There are other theories of space-time which do not assume away the “ether” that will produce similar and/or better results and don't have paradoxes/contradictions.
See Herbert Dingle's paper, “Science at the Crossroads” 1972. This paper discusses in plain language the contradictions inherent in Einstein's theory of special relativity; in other words, why Einstein's special theory of relativity is false.
Note that H Dingle was previously a strong advocate of Einstein's theories. This paper is available for free download. Herbert Dingle argues that mathematics (in special relativity theory) has come to dominate experimentation in the field of physics - regardless of if there are logical contradictions (impossibilities) contained in the mathematics. In other words, the mathematics of Einstein solved one problem in the field of physics (the “null” result of the Michelson-Morley experiment), but created other problems via the contradictions contained in the mathematical theory. Dingle argues that no one has satisfactorily resolved these contradictions, and that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is false. Dingle explains this in his 169 page book, in terms that anyone with a good high school education can understand. He notes that the contradictions have been deflected, suppressed, and ignored by scientists and philosophers to the present day in order to provide support for the government-authorized “narrative” that special relativity is “true” (no one will receive funding for studying or proposing a counternarrative).
[Extended quote from Dingle's paper, “Science at the Crossroads,” pg. 23]
“Let me now, after this preamble, record in outline the history of this matter. It began with a revival of an old problem, known as the 'clock paradox' or 'twin paradox',which dates from the early days of special relativity. I shall deal with this more fully in Chapter 9, so a brief description will suffice here. One of the earliest deductions from the theory was that if a traveller sets out from the Earth at a high speed and later returns, he will have aged less than his twin brother who has remained at home, because 'a moving clock runs slow' and the physiological processes of a man are equivalent to a clock. But equally, according to the theory, it is the Earth that might be regarded as having moved while the 'traveller' has remained at the same place, in which case the Earthbound twin would be the younger at the end of the process. These results obviously cannot both be true. In 1955 I adverted to this problem as a result of reading Sir George Thomson's book, The Foreseeable Future, in which it was stated that, according to the most authoritative view, the former result was correct and the latter therefore incorrect. In an article in Nature1 I claimed that the twins must necessarily age at the same rate because it was an essential requirement of the special theory of relativity, which I then believed to be sound, that no observation was possible that would enable one to ascribe the motion preferentially to either twin.
I need not here describe the course of the ensuing discussion, for all that is necessary will be said later. I mention the controversy here because it was the origin of my realisation that the special relativity theory (which, as I have said, at the beginning of that discussion I believed sound) was impossible: it made me see that the theory required that the twins would age both at the same rate and at different rates, which is clearly contradictory. My first presentation of the contradiction appeared in the Bulletin of the Institute of Physics2, which hardly constitutes publication since that is a journal issued only to members of the Institute — admittedly numerous and including many of the most distinguished physicists — and not generally available in libraries. I there expressed the contradiction, not in terms of clock readings, which Einstein had considered in his first presentation of the theory, but in terms of readings of space-measuring rods, and I showed that the theory required each of two such rods to be shorter than the other. I also ventured some speculations on electromagnetic aspects of the theory, which I should have been wiser to have left for further reflection after the kinematical question had been
settled. “[See also M Bowden's “True Science Agrees with the Bible” Appendix 9 for information about alternate theories to relativity that do not contain logical contradictions]
[Add discussion about Quantum Physics and the statistical view of nature – see I Barbour's works, including “Issues in Science and Religion”]
[Add discussion about how to view quantum physics from a Biblical perspective]
[Add discussion about how the Biblical view is able to reconcile the deterministic view of science with the statistical view of science]
Questions to be answered:
What is the clock or twin paradox?
What did Einstein postulate in his special theory of relativity?
Other questions ….
