Einstein's idiotic twin story

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..."

That is, all along, the traveling twin observes himself aging faster than his stationary brother, but, as the traveling twin turns around for a very brief period, "enough strangeness occurs" and his distant stationary brother suddenly gets very old and dies. Finally, although the turnaround's spooky action at a distance is crucial, it can be ignored in the calculations.

Insane Einsteinians explain the "enough strangeness":

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...in_paradox.htm
"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. (...) On the outward leg, Jane observes Joe's clock to run slowly, and she observes that it ticks slowly on the return run. (...) Why is the accleration in mid voyage so important?. As we saw above, it marks the point at which Jane goes from one inertial frame to another. Does this have a direct, physical effect on her? Let's picture what happens. While the engines were on at mid voyage, objects in the spacecraft are no longer in free fall (they are no longer 'weightless'): the objects in Jane's ship collect on the 'floor' (this is the name we might give to the wall in a space ship in the direction of the engine exhaust). During this phase, and with reference to the frame of the ship, any free objects seem to accelerate towards the 'floor'. No force is causing this 'acceleration', so this is not an inertial frame. (For the importance of inertial frames, see this link.) Now if Jane treats this as an acceleration, she will deduce from it that she will no longer be flying away from Joe's messages, but flying towards them, so she will, as we saw above, expect them to arrive at higher frequency, starting immediately. Applying Special Relativity, she will conclude that she will arrive having aged less than Joe. But what if there are no windows on Jane's ship? Is there an alternative, local explanation for the asymmetry in the clocks and messages? There is, and it involves Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. 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."

Einsteinians are practitioners of doublethink. They do believe that the turning-around acceleration is crucially important and that general relativity is required to explain the twin paradox, but they also believe that the turning-around acceleration is unimportant and that general relativity is not required to explain the twin paradox:

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."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"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. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) 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

The idiocy started in 1905. Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails symmetrical time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published - symmetrical time dilation is absurd (not even wrong). Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (this means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although his special relativity was unable to explain why the moving clock lags behind the stationary one, his general relativity did have the solution to the clock paradox:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "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."

The fraud is obvious - if it is general relativity that explains why the moving clock lags behind the stationary one, how did Einstein reach this conclusion in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked essentially the same question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

Pentcho Valev