TWIN PARADOX AND REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

A twin paradox scenario where acceleration is avoided:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "11.19. Modified
twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox.
A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A
with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks
to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and
moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets
his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they
compare the readings on their clocks. At this moment, let A's clock
read TA, and let C's clock read TC. (a) Working in A's frame, show
that TC = TA/(gamma). (b) Working in B's frame, show again that TC =
TA/(gamma). (c) Working in C's frame, show again that TC = TA/
(gamma)."

Note that in this scenario, up to the moment when C sets his clock to
read the same as B's, A has been a genuine travelling twin who has
completed the outward part of his journey in B's frame. A's clock has
been running slow relative to clocks in B's frame, as judged from B's
frame.

A will remain a genuine travelling twin in C's frame and will perform
the rest of his journey if, as C sets his clock to read the same as
B's, simultaneously (in B's frame), at the location of A, another
clock belonging to C's frame is set to read the same as another clock
belonging to B's frame (it is assumed that clocks in B's frame are
synchronized). Then, as A moves between the two clocks belonging to
C's frame, his clock is running slow as judged from C's frame.

According to Einstein's special relativity, time dilation is
RECIPROCAL. This means that, in a twin paradox scenario where
acceleration is avoided, the sedentary twin CAN be interpreted as a
travelling twin. Needless to say, such an interpretation amounts to
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - at the end of the journey, either twin proves
both younger and older than his brother.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, 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."

A scenario in which an "alien" clock moves between clocks at rest in
the measurement system is INDISPENSABLE for a system that is to
measure time dilation (the "alien" clock shows less time elapsed than
clocks at rest in the measurement system, according to special
relativity). Einsteiniana's thought experiments implicitly convert the
sedentary twin's system into a full-blooded measurement system (that
is, capable of measuring time dilation) while the travelling twin's
system is reduced to an "alien" clock moving between clocks at rest in
the sedentary twin's system. So the travelling twin always returns
younger and makes Einsteinians fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Any scenario converting the sedentary twin's clock into an "alien"
clock moving between clocks at rest in another system, if analysed
correctly, refutes special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

By definition, nothing is absurd in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
(REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is an obsolete procedure):

http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/~norman/l...A2SR/part3.pdf
University of Glasgow: "A farmer with a 20m ladder holds it
horizontally and runs toward a barn which is 10m deep. The farmer's
wife, standing by the barn door, sees him running at a speed at which
gamma=2. The ladder is therefore length-contracted to have a measured
length of 10m in the barn's frame, so that the ladder will fit
entirely into the barn, and the farmer's wife can slam the door behind
him, with the '20m' ladder entirely (and briefly!) within the 10m
barn..."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

Leonard Susskind is sure that, in the absence of acceleration, the
roles of the twins can be reversed - "then, surely the previously
stationary twin would age less than the previously moving twin":

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...time-dilation/
Leonard Susskind: "The supposed paradox is that surely, since
everything is relative, we can reverse the roles of the twins - the
stationary one is in fact moving at velocity -v relative to the
previously moving twin. Then, surely the previously stationary twin
would age less than the previously moving twin. The problem with this
argument is that the roles cannot be reversed. It must be the case
that the original moving twin has to experience some acceleration
during the motion, whilst the stationary one certainly does not."

Of course, if Susskind knew that no-acceleration versions of the twin
paradox exist, he would not have even thought of a younger stationary
twin and older moving twin:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

Twin paradox and doublethink: The turn-around of the travelling twin
is ignored if the sedentary twin evaluates the time-dilation effects
(believers fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity" and the ecstasy increases) but
then all miracles occur during the turn-around if the travelling twin
evaluates the time-dilation effects (the ecstasy gets uncontrollable -
believers tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into
convulsions):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=3Z9eIEkz-ag#!

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Now consider the judgments of simultaneity of the
traveling twin, as shown in the spacetime diagram opposite. Since the
traveling twin is moving very rapidly, the traveler's hypersurfaces of
simultaneity are quite tilted. Two hypersurfaces of simultaneity are
shown in the lower part of the diagram for the outward part of the
traveler's journey. These are the hypersurfaces that pass through the
event at which the clock reads 1 day and just before the turn-around
at the traveler's clock time of 2 days. We read from these
hypersurfaces that the traveling twin judges the stay-at-home twin's
clock to be running at half the speed of the travelers. When the
traveler's clock reads 1 day, the stay-at-home twin's reads 1/2 day;
just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2
days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. 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."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate
systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this
theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated)
coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which
sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and
uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that
is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that
after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no
contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory.
(...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a
velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2.
However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during
partial process 3. 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 consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought
up."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

Spetial attention to the miraculous turnaround (demi-tour) which,
although performed by the travelling twin, somehow "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":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=3Z9eIEkz-ag#!
"Vu du vaisseau, tout se passe au moment du demi-tour."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "...just before the turn around, when the traveler's
clock is almost at 2 days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at
1 day. 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."

The turnaround miracle is an ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis advanced by
Einstein in 1918 which successfully camouflaged the absurdity of
special relativity (special relativity predicts that the travelling
twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother).
Einstein's 1918 ad hoc hypothesis is just as idiotic as the Lorentz-
Fitzgerald ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis which successfully
camouflaged the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment had
unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by
Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/re...reinte-ex4.htm
"En fait, tout se déroule normalement tant que le voyageur ne fait pas
demi-tour. Théoriquement, pour tout phénomène se déroulant dans un
référentiel uniforme et non accéléré (galiléen), Einstein nous dit que
le battement des horloges est minimum dans ce référentiel et plus long
(le temps se dilate) dans tous les autres qui voient donc leur durée
s'allonger. Concrètement, tant que la fusée avance par inertie, le
frère jumeau embarqué verra tous les événements se déroulant sur Terre
se dérouler plus lentement (dilatation du temps) qu'à bord de sa
fusée. Le paradoxe n'apparaît en fait que lorsque le pilote fait demi-
tour (décélération et accélération qui ne se produisent plus dans un
référentiel d'inertie, y compris le freinage à destination) et rentre
sur Terre, où il constatera que c'est l'inverse qui s'est produit :
son frère jumeau et tous ses amis ont vieilli... Le temps pour eux
s'est écoulé beaucoup plus rapidement qu'à bord de la fusée. La
théorie de la relativité restreinte ne s'applique qu'à des mouvements
uniformes non accélérés. J'insiste bien : le calcul de gamma et autre
contraction ne fonctionnent pas avec une fusée en accélération car le
référentiel n'est plus inertiel et Einstein nous demande de tenir
compte de la topologie de l'espace-temps où masse et énergie
interviennent également. Dans ce cas on doit appliquer les lois de la
relativité générale."

Mais "Einstein nous demande de tenir compte" des effets de
l'accélération dès 1918 alors qu'en 1905 il calcule l'effet (le
voyageur retrouve son frère plus âgé) sans nous demander de tenir
compte de quoi que ce soit! Comment ça? Est-ce qu'en 1905 Einstein
applique, secrètement, "les lois de la relativité générale"?

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Special attention to the miraculous turnaround (demi-tour) which,
although performed by the travelling twin, somehow "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":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=3Z9eIEkz-ag#!
"Vu du vaisseau, tout se passe au moment du demi-tour."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "...just before the turn around, when the traveler's
clock is almost at 2 days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at
1 day. 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."

The turnaround miracle is an ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis advanced by
Einstein in 1918 which successfully camouflaged the absurdity of
special relativity (special relativity predicts that the travelling
twin returns both younger and older than his sedentary brother).
Einstein's 1918 ad hoc hypothesis is just as idiotic as the Lorentz-
Fitzgerald ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis which successfully
camouflaged the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment had
unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by
Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

A large number of clocks are scattered on and rotate with the
periphery of a rotating disc. A single inertial clock stands outside
the disc but so close against the rotating periphery that its reading
can be compared with the readings of rotating clocks passing by. Will
the single inertial clock go slower or faster than rotating clocks?

By increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping both the linear
speed of the periphery and the distance between adjacent rotating
clocks constant, one converts the clocks rotating with the periphery
into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they
experience is reduced to zero). Then special relativity predicts that
the single inertial clock will be seen running SLOWER than the
virtually inertial clocks passing it. That is, the difference between
the reading of the single inertial clock and the reading of any clock
on the periphery will DECREASE with time.

Another prediction based on special relativity is that the single
inertial clock will be seen running FASTER than the clocks on the
periphery ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ). That is, the
difference between the reading of the single inertial clock and the
reading of any clock on the periphery will INCREASE with time.

Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that some postulate of
special relativity is false.

Pentcho Valev

Confusing believers never stops in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.physorg.com/news163738003.html
"Physicist Marek Abramowicz of Goteborg University in Sweden and
astronomer Stanislaw Bajtlik of the Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical
Center in Warszawa, Poland, have proposed the surprising new version
of the twin paradox, which at first seems to run contrary to the
traditional version. However, the scientists show that the traditional
version is actually a specific case of a more general concept. "In the
best known version of the twin paradox, the twin who is accelerated is
younger," Abramowicz and Bajtlik told PhysOrg.com. "In the version
discussed by us the accelerated twin is older. It is quite surprising.
It is almost as to say that 'the older twin is younger'."

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

Einsteinians don't like the pole-barn scenario because it is
destructive (but not absurd):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jcv/pdfs/chapter6.pdf
John C. Vander Velde, Physics Department, University of Michigan: "An
athlete, running with a 15 ft long pole, gets momentarily captured in
a barn that is only 9 ft long. How is that possible? It's easy. The
athlete simply runs at 80% of the speed of light so that his Lorentz
contraction factor is 0.6. The door-keeper at the back of the barn
agrees to close the door at the instant the front of the pole hits the
front of the barn. Since the door-keeper has, effectively, marked the
front and back of the pole simultaneously in the barn system the pole
will be only 15ft X 0.6 = 9 ft long. It will just exactly fit in the
barn at that instant. This problem is entirely equivalent to Flo and
Joe simultaneously painting spots on the passing rocket ship. The
spots end up 50 ft apart on the ship even thought Flo and Joe were
only 30 ft apart. (I like the painting spots version better than the
pole-vaulter problem because it is less destructive. Think of what
happens to the poor pole-vaulter in the next instant when he slams
into the front of the barn. Ugh.)"

Einsteinians,

Have you ever considered all "destructive" implications of this
particular prediction of special relativity? For instance, a suitable
geometry of the pole and the barn would allow you to reduce the volume
of the pole as much as you wish. Is this absurd? No? Just awfully
destructive? Ugh ugh ugh? Bravo, Einsteinians!

Pentcho Valev