Einstein's Twin Paradox: Absurdity Over Absurdity

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
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. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

The deliberately vague expression 'enough strangeness' somewhat camouflages the absurdity but still the contradiction is easy to see: the turning-around acceleration is both crucial (without it, twin A would not end up older) and immaterial. Here is Einstein unequivocally saying in 1918 that the turning-around acceleration ('gravitational field') is CRUCIAL and its effect is given by a 'calculation' based on general relativity:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "A homogenous 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."

Today's Einsteinians almost universally reject (implicitly of course) Einstein's 1918 arguments and teach that the turning-around acceleration is IMMATERIAL:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ativity-theor/
Ronald Lasky: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/
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."

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."

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."

The acceleration-is-both-crucial-and-immaterial absurdity is built over the original, either-twin-ends-up-younger, absurdity. Such a degree of idiocy is unbearable for sane and intelligent people - they either become marginalized critics (cranks, crackpots, trolls) or leave physics altogether. Activists in Einstein schizophrenic world are either subtle practitioners of doublethink (a small group of intelligent but deeply insane individuals) or thoughtless zombies (ninety-five percent of Einsteinians).

Pentcho Valev

One of the fundamental lies in Einstein schizophrenic world:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-...l-through-time
"This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

"Time slows down for you" is a blatant lie but since it has been repeated a zillion times in the last century, Einsteinians worship it as an absolute truth. Actually special relativity predicts just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP for you if you are set into motion. You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clocks with the rate of clocks of the stationary observer (who is not set into motion). The comparison will show that the latter clocks are slow and your clocks are FAST.

Einstein's special relativity does predict that your clocks slow down but the slowing is not "for you", that is, not for the moving observer. Only the stationary observer sees your clocks slowing down; you, the moving observer, see them SPEEDING UP.

Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), time travel into the future is impossible - moving clocks do not slow down.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein world is not just schizophrenic - it is olygophrenic:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-twin-paradox/
"From the perspective of the spaceship, the Earth is moving and its clocks are running slower. Both of us, you on the spaceship and me on the Earth, would see time passing more slowly for the other person. Each of us would think the other person's clock is slower. But this raises an interesting question: what happens if you turn around and come back to Earth, and we compare our clocks? Whose clock is really going slower? The clocks on the spaceship. Why? I'll let MinutePhysics explain: [...] The key is that spaceship has to turn around to get back to Earth. As it does, it has to change speed and direction, during which time the clocks on the Earth start to speed up."

So the moment the spaceship starts to turn around, clocks on the distant Earth start to speed up. This is olygophrenic, isn't it, Einsteinians?

Pentcho Valev