THE TWIN ABSURDITY IN EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) 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. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
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."

During "the coasting time at high velocity", "B does observe A's clock running slow" and therefore sees himself returning from the trip OLDER.

On the other hand, during "the coasting time at high velocity", A does observe B's clock running slow and therefore sees B returning from the trip YOUNGER.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency. The turning-around "strangeness" is camouflage introduced by Einstein in 1918. According to Einstein, calculations based on the acceleration or "gravitational potential" experienced by the travelling twin show miraculously fast ageing of the sedentary twin during the short turning-around period. Today's Einsteinians rarely use Einstein's 1918 turning-around hoax (scientific rationality is almost completely destroyed and there is no need for camouflage):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): 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..."

How can one demonstrate this? In Einstein's relativity, the slowness of a clock (youthfulness of a twin) is usually demonstrated by comparing it with two or more "fast" clocks. That is, we need a scenario in which the stationary twin's clock is consecutively checked against the clocks of two or more travelling twins. Consider ants/twins travelling with constant speed along a rectangular line and passing a single stationary ant/twin 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 ant/twin is gradually getting younger than the travelling ants/twins it consecutively meets. That is, the difference in age between the travelling ant/twin just being met and the single stationary ant/twin increases with the number of meetings.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1918 turning-around hoax: All along, the travelling twin (Jane) observes the sedentary twin's clock to run slow, but during the short turning-around period she imagines herself to be on the surface of a planet and her sedentary brother a long way overhead. While fiercely singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", she concludes that her brother's clocks run fast during the turning-around period, and he ages quickly. So, thanks to Jane's imaginations, the paradox is resolved:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm
Professor Joe Wolfe: "Jane and Joe are twins. Jane travels in a straight line at a relativistic speed v to some distant location. She then decelerates and returns. Her twin brother Joe stays at home on Earth. The situation is shown in the diagram, which is not to scale. Joe observes that Jane's on-board clocks (including her biological one), which run at Jane's proper time, run slowly on both outbound and return leg. He therefore concludes that she will be younger than he will be when she returns. On the outward leg, Jane observes Joe's clock to run slowly, and she observes that it ticks slowly on the return run. So will Jane conclude that Joe will have aged less? And if she does, who is correct? According to the proponents of the paradox, there is a symmetry between the two observers, so, just plugging in the equations of relativity, each will predict that the other is younger. This cannot be simultaneously true for both so, if the argument is correct, relativity is wrong. (...) If Jane cannot look out of the ship, her sensations and measurements during the deceleration will be just the same is if her ship were at rest on the surface of a planet and that gravity made things fall towards the floor. The local equivalence of a gravitational field and an accelerating frame is a starting point for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. One of the consequences of the general theory is that clocks at high gravitational potential run more quickly than those at low potential. (So, for example, very accurate laboratory clocks on Earth run are observed to run faster when their altitude is increased.) In terms of Jane's local frame during the turn around, Joe is a long way overhead and so, according to her, his clocks run fast during that time, and he ages quickly. Further, Joe's 'height' above her depends on how far she has travelled, so his clocks run more quickly during the turn around in a long voyage. This is quite important, because proponents of the twin paradox sometimes argue that, whatever the effect of the turn around, it can be made negligible by making the journey far enough. Not so. The longer the journey, the greater the effect due to GR. (Similarly, in terms of the SR argument above, the longer the journey, the longer it takes for Jane's change of frames to be observed by Joe, and so the bigger effect.) Thus, if Jane applies General Relativity as well as Special Relativity, she concludes that Joe will be older and thus resolves the paradox. It is important to point out, however, that appealing to General Relativity is not necessary to resolve the paradox, as demonstrated above. In order to create the twin paradox, one must assume that Jane has been in a single inertial frame throughout her out-and-back trip. As this assumption is false, there is no paradox."

Needless to say, Joe Wolfe's last few sentences are camouflage. If Jane's imaginations and the respective conclusions are ignored ("appealing to General Relativity is not necessary to resolve the paradox"), the answer to the question asked at the end of the following excerpt is "yes" and Einstein's relativity will have to be rejected as contradictory:

"Joe observes that Jane's on-board clocks (including her biological one), which run at Jane's proper time, run slowly on both outbound and return leg. He therefore concludes that she will be younger than he will be when she returns. On the outward leg, Jane observes Joe's clock to run slowly, and she observes that it ticks slowly on the return run. So will Jane conclude that Joe will have aged less?"

Pentcho Valev

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, how quickly the sedentary twin ages depends on both the travelling twin's imaginations (she imagines herself being on the surface on a planet) and the distance between the sedentary twin and the traveller:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm
Professor Joe Wolfe: "If Jane cannot look out of the ship, her sensations and measurements during the deceleration will be just the same is if her ship were at rest on the surface of a planet and that gravity made things fall towards the floor. (...) In terms of Jane's local frame during the turn around, Joe is a long way overhead and so, according to her, his clocks run fast during that time, and he ages quickly. Further, Joe's 'height' above her depends on how far she has travelled, so his clocks run more quickly during the turn around in a long voyage. This is quite important, because proponents of the twin paradox sometimes argue that, whatever the effect of the turn around, it can be made negligible by making the journey far enough. Not so. The longer the journey, the greater the effect due to GR."

A deity and an important relativist both acting as "proponents of the twin paradox":

http://www.academia.edu/3771200/Eins...d_twin_paradox
Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
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."

Pentcho Valev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di...ving_particles
"According to special relativity, the rate of clock C traveling between two synchronized laboratory clocks A and B is slowed with respect to the laboratory clock rates. This effect is called time dilation."

The principle of relativity allows us to modify the above text in the following way:

According to special relativity, the rate of stationary clock C consecutively meeting two synchronized moving clocks A and B is slowed with respect to the moving clocks rates. This effect is called time dilation.

Consider 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

Special relativity predicts that the single stationary clock gradually loses time compared with the travelling clocks it consecutively meets. That is, the difference in reading between the travelling clock just being met and the single stationary clock increases with the number of meetings.

Needless to say, this contradicts the traditional twin paradox interpretation according to which travelling clocks lose time compared with stationary clocks. We have redictio ad absurdum: the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev