The Necessity of Solving the Clocks Contradiction in SR, and the Twins Problem.

                                                                Copyright 2004 - 2014 David V Connell.

      The question to be answered is "which of two apparently identical atomic clocks moving relative to each other runs faster than the other?" According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) both clocks are running slower than the other, which is not logically possible.
      SR cannot resolve the problem as SR is based on relative velocity and any suggested answer is equally applicable to both clocks.

      A particular problem for over 45 years has been to get an intelligent answer from supporters of SR to the question of how this contradiction can be explained by Einstein's theory. Without an explanation, the validity of Einstein's theory is refuted absolutely, but no regard to this failure has ever been implemented. Professor H. Dingle spent 13 years trying to get a sensible answer to this simple question, without success, eventually putting all the history of his attempts and failures into a book [1], but even this failed to elicit any sensible response from physicists of authority , or a refutation of the theory.

      In August 1970, a letter to The Times from the Rev. Dr. W. J. Platt, formerly General Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society, stated the situation quite clearly, that this failure to recognize that Einstein's theory was faulty was putting the public and the integrity of scientists in great danger. An excerpt from his letter follows:-
"I have been waiting for some authoritative statement showing either that the assertions were unfounded or that steps were being taken to rectify a dangerous situation. As far as I am aware, none has appeared, and the implications of the matter seem so serious that public interest demands one without delay.
"Prof. Dingle, who, I believe, is recognized as a leading authority on Einstein's special relativity theory, on which physicists acknowledge that they rely, has advanced what he claims to be a fatal criticism of that theory. On such a matter the layman is, of course, not qualified to speak: he is, however, entitled to an assurance that the scientific world remains true to its principle of answering or accepting informed criticism. This appears to be not only, as it has always been, a moral duty of scientists, but in these days, when the experiments performed are of such enormous potential danger, a necessity. According to the un-contradicted assertion in the Listener of October 30 last, however, the President of the Royal Society failed to give an assurance that scientific integrity is still preserved. If earlier statements in the correspondence are true, he could hardly . . . . . do so."
      But this did not produce any progress on the matter either. And after more than 40 years still nothing has changed! SR still appears to be the accepted theory of Relativity.

      Perhaps the establishment is waiting for a constructive solution to the problem, not a destructive one such as refuting a theory without offering a better alternative. If so, that alternative, "Natural Relativity" (NR) [2], (written Sep 05) now exists and, because of abnormal publishing delays and apparent suppressive policies, it was eventually published in Sep 09. Its main results have been used to explain the errors in SR and GR on this web site SR's problems.

      This simpler, coherent theory, not only has none of the anomalies, paradoxes and contradictions found over the years in SR and GR, but also agrees with all known (valid) experiments, does not require distortions to space and time, and reveals the widespread use of several false assumptions, which are at the heart of the problems with SR (and relativity in general). The chief culprits for at least one of those assumptions were probably ALL the leading physicists at the turn of the 20th century. Basing a theory on widely held assumptions without adequate evidence will eventually produce contradictory situations and raise conflicts with practical experience or experiments, if any of them are not true. Such appears to be the case with SR.

      The solution to the clocks paradox (contradiction), according to NR and several more papers since then, is dependent on the relative energy levels of the clocks (assuming they are both at the same gravitational potential):-
      When two identical clocks are moving relative to each other, one is probably at a higher energy level than the other and so it works more slowly than the other. If it is known which clock is at a higher energy level, the answer is known. In the case of a deceleration relative to a common speed, then energy is subtracted and that clock will speed up.
      If they are at the same energy level, they run at the same rate, even if located in different places.

      The twins situation differs from the clocks paradox. One twin is stated to be accelerated to a high velocity relative to the other for some considerable time and then returned, so they are both again at their original position, not moving relative to each other and their identical clocks are running at the same rate. But, according to Einstein's Special Relativity the clocks are showing different times due to relative speed causing the moving clock to run slower during the journey than the stationary clock. Hence, if the traveller's internal clock slows by the same amount he will have aged less than the stationary twin.

     However, according to Natural Relativity, the loss of clock time on the outward journey is caused by added energy and the necessary deduction of twice the amount of energy to facilitate the return journey causes a gain in clock time of exacly the same amount lost on the outward journey. So the traveller has aged the same amount as the other twin, which agrees with the principles of relativity.


      The above postulation is unaffected even if one object has more energy added during a journey than the other, due to needing less energy to be subtracted on its return journey.

  [1] H. Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, (Martin Brian & O'Keefe, London, 1972).
  [2] D.V.Connell, "Natural effects of applied energy, motion, and gravity, on mass", Phys. Essays 22(3) 402-412 (2009).

              Click here to return to CONTENTS.