Simple Clue to Einstein's Twin Paradox

The solution to Einstein's twin paradox is hidden in this text:

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

Implication: According to special relativity, an observer whose reference frame is considered point-like can measure no time dilation. Only an observer whose reference frame is considered spatially extended (so that distances between clocks are defined) can measure time dilation.

In the traditional twin paradox scenario the traveling twin's system is regarded as point-like while the stationary twin's system is spatially extended. Accordingly, only the youthfulness of the traveling twin can be deduced. The youthfulness of the stationary twin can only be deduced in a complementary scenario (the second below) where it is the traveling twin's system that is spatially extended:

A train is at rest and a clock is moving to and fro between two (stationary) clocks situated at the front and back ends of the train. This is the traditional relativistic scenario - special relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slower than (lags behind) the two stationary clocks on the train.

In a complementary scenario, the single clock is on the ground, at rest, but the train is moving to and fro so that the stationary clock on the ground effectively commutes between the front and back ends of the train. Now special relativity predicts that the single stationary clock on the ground runs slower than (lags behind) the two clocks on the moving train.

Clearly, the twin paradox is actually an absurdity, as are all consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

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

The single clock which is checked against two other clocks belongs to a point-like system (PLS), point-like meaning that the spatial dimensions of this system are ignored in the analysis. In contrast, the two other clocks belong to a spatially extended system (SES) - distances between clocks in this system are obligatorily defined.

Special relativity does say how an observer in SES measures time dilation of a clock in PLS, but an observer in PLS is unable to measure time dilation, unless spatial dimensions (distances between clocks) are additionally introduced for PLS.

And now the century-old relativistic trick: Only the scenario "moving PLS / stationary SES" is considered. The scenario "moving SES / stationary PLS" is never considered. The conclusions are well known: the moving clock runs slow; the moving twin remains younger; time travel into the future is possible.

Let me introduce the dangerous scenario "moving SES / stationary PLS" (I have already analysed one such scenario in my previous posting). Imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2..._rectangle.png

Scenario 1 (traditional: moving PLS / stationary SES): The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY.

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's relativity predicts that, if a single MOVING ant is travelling along the polygonal line, and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Scenario 2 (dangerous: moving SES / stationary PLS): The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line.

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's relativity predicts that the clock of a single STATIONARY ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks - and should be immediately discarded:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev

One of the most idiotic texts in the relativistic literatu

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..."

David Morin is a subtle practitioner of doublethink and accordingly has no problem making contradictory statements simultaneously, in the same text (sillier Einsteinians separate them - e.g. the turning-around acceleration is immaterial in one text and becomes crucial in another):

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