BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO TEACHES THE TWIN PARADOX

Bingo the Einsteiniano is the name of any person in Divine Albert's world who has undergone special brainwashing in Einsteiniana, brainwashing very similar to the one undergone by an unfortunate creature called Bingo the Clowno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ
Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!!

Hard brainwashing time is over, Bingo is professor and teaches that the acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for the twin effect:

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. (...) Careful attention to the differing judgments of simultaneity of the two twins shows that there is nothing paradoxical in the twin effect. The brief moment of acceleration of the traveling twin completely alters the traveler's judgments of simultaneity and this alteration is key to seeing how relativity provides a consistent account of the effect. Nevertheless, many still get confused by the twin effect."

Why are so many people confused? Because Professor Bingo also teaches that the acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for the twin effect:

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."

Why do all professors called Bingo the Einsteiniano teach that acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the twin effect? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

http://doc.rero.ch/record/23518/file...8_1913_158.pdf
"Son électrodynamique est restée inachevée. Au cours de sa dernière maladie, l'idée de la tâche à accomplir subsiste et le soutient jusqu'à la fin. Le jour même de sa mort, le 7 juillet 1909, il dit à la soeur qui le veille: « Soignez-moi bien, ma soeur, il est si nécessaire que je vive encore quelques années pour la Science ! »

Poor Ritz! At the end of his life he saw the tsunami of insanity that was going to devastate science! Nowadays countless professors called Bingo the Einsteiniano teach future Bingos to trap long trains inside short tunnels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

The only unresolved problem in Divine Albert's world: Is the long train trapped inside the short tunnel IN A COMPRESSED STATE or not? Some Bingos say it is, others say it isn't:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte.. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin.."

Pentcho Valev