Einstein's equations, suggests that some basic inconsistency has been overlooked.
The section, p.70-76, entitled The Fallacy of the Clock Paradox, attempts to explain the misunderstanding.
This writer contends that "there is no doubt whatever that the accepted theory of relativity is a complete and self-consistent theory and it quite definitely implies that a space-traveler will return from his journey younger than his stay-at-home twin brother."
He cites a numerical example which he thinks makes the matter easier to follow than would any mathematical formula.
Refers to formula derived by Singer and extended by Hoffman which, according to the author, does not follow directly from the solutions of the field equation. This the author proceeds to do.
A distinction is made between the "postulate of relativity" and the "postulate of constant light-velocity," the former being taken to imply that if two bodies separate and reunite, there is no observable phenomenon that will show in an absolute sense that one rather than the other has moved. The claim that the second postulate involved no asymmetry is reiterated.
The writer has repeatedly pointed out that symmetrical ageing is an inevitable requirement of the postulate of relativity. He considers the problem in more detail in order to bring out what he believes to be misconception underlying such arguments as that of Sir Charles Darwin. (See Item 48).
Refers briefly to E. A. Milne's manner of reconciling clock readings.
- 12 -
