Clock Runs Both Fast and Slow in Einstein's Schizophrenic World
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-14 09:38:58 UTC
Raw Message
Einsteinians teach that the stationary twin always gets older than his traveling brother but use a biased scenario. In this scenario the checking procedure described in the following quotation is possible in the stationary twin's system (this twin CAN perform it) and impossible in his traveling brother's system (in the biased scenario this system is presented as point-like, not extended in space, and accordingly the traveling twin CANNOT perform the checking procedure):

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

In an alternative scenario where the traveling twin CAN perform the checking procedure, the stationary twin is aging SLOWER, that is, remains YOUNGER (according to Einstein's relativity). This is easy to see in both the one-way travel case and to-and-fro travel case:

1. One-way travel case: In the following picture the single moving clock lags behind the multiple stationary clocks, but if the single clock were stationary and the multiple clocks moving, the single stationary clock would lag behind the multiple moving clocks:

Loading Image...

Accordingly, the stationary owner of the single clock would get younger and younger than traveling owners of moving clocks.

2. To-and-fro travel case: Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks and travel with constant speed:

Loading Image...

For this scenario, Einstein's relativity predicts that the clock of a single STATIONARY ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than traveling brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency (it predicts that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks) and should be immediately discarded:

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 theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-14 14:17:36 UTC
Raw Message

Special Relativity Lecture:8 Twin Paradox Theory Is Wrong!

My comment on YouTube:

Nowadays most Einsteinians teach that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial, even though in 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that it plays a crucial role in the resolution of the twin paradox. As for the muon lifetime experiment, it is an almost obvious hoax. How are muons "at rest" defined, and how does one measure their lifetime? Here is the answer:

Quote: "The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."

Quote: "In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

Clearly the muons "at rest" are not at rest actually - they are undergoing a catastrophe. Their speed instantly changes from almost 300000 km/s to zero. For that reason the lifetime of muons "at rest" is shorter than the lifetime of moving muons (which are not undergoing a catastrophe). There is no time dilation.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-14 17:20:59 UTC
Raw Message
In order to save his "theory", in 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, during the turning-around acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field appears:

Albert Einstein: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

This HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science so David Morin shyly calls it "enough strangeness":

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

Nowadays most Einsteinians implicitly reject Einstein's 1918 idiocy and teach that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial:

Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

Pentcho Valev