THE SECRET TO EINSTEIN'S TWIN PARADOX

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."

This means that, according to Einstein's relativity, a clock consecutively meeting another system's clocks goes more slowly than them, AS JUDGED FROM THE OTHER SYSTEM. It doesn't matter whether the clock is moving and the other system's clocks stationary, or the clock is stationary and the other system's clocks moving:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

In other words, according to Einstein's relativity, the slowness of a clock is a valid conclusion only if that clock is visiting different points in another system and an observer in that other system is able to check the reading of the clock against readings of clocks situated at those points.

In the traditional twin paradox scenario, the tavelling twin's clock does visit different points of the stationary system, but the stationary twin's clock is not regarded as visiting different points of the moving system. For that reason the slowness of the stationary clock cannot be demonstrated in this scenario, no matter how hard you try. Only the slowness of the moving clock can be demonstrated, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg

Pentcho Valev

Neil deGrasse Tyson confuses the gullible 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."

Actually, Einstein's special relativity predicts the opposite: For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, time ticks FASTER for the traveller (he sees his clock running FASTER than the stationary clock):

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, 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..."

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 [the outward and return parts of the trip] the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2."

Note: In Einstein's paper U2 is actually the travelling clock and U1 is the resting one, but since in the above quotation things are judged from the traveller's reference frame, U1 is said to be "going at a velocity v" while U2 is called "resting".

Pentcho Valev

Any scenario considering the stationary twin's clock visiting different points of the moving system entails, in accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, that the stationary twin's clock is the slow one and that the stationary twin gets younger than his travelling brother.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks, and assume for the moment that the clocks/ants are STATIONARY:

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

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single moving ant travels along the polygonal line and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the travelling 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.

This is what Einsteinians traditionally teach, but note that the scenario does not allow stationary clocks/ants to visit different points of the moving system.

Let us change the scenario so that stationary clocks/ants can visit different points of the moving system. The multiple clocks/ants are now MOVING - they travel with constant speed along the closed polygonal line and pass a single stationary clock/ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. Again, the single (stationary this time) clock is consecutively checked against the multiple (moving this time) clocks passing it.

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the single stationary clock 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 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails absurdities and should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/HTMLdosy...Relativity.htm
"The most famous hypothetical illustration of time dilation is usually called the twin paradox. Suppose there are twins named Harry and Mary. Mary takes off in a spaceship which travels very fast away from earth (it must travel close to the speed of light for the effect to be noticeable) and returns very fast. We can think of the human body as a clock which records the passage of time by aging. Since Mary is moving very fast, her clock runs slowly, compared to Harry's clock. As a result, when Mary arrives back at earth she has aged less than Harry has. How much less depends on how far she has traveled, and how fast. Time dilation is not just a crazy idea. It has been verified experimentally. Perhaps the best example of this involves a subatomic particle called a muon. The muon is an unstable particle, which means that shortly after one is created, it decays into lighter particles. How long a muon takes to decay has been measured very precisely. Anyway, it's been observed that a muon moving close to the speed of light lives longer than a muon that's at rest or moving slowly. This is a relativistic effect."

"The best example" is a fraud. A fast flying muon crashes into an obstacle and quickly disintegrates. In Einstein's schizophrenic world, the short period of disintegration (during which, according to Einsteinians, the muon is "at rest") is shorter than the lifetime of non-crashing muons because non-crashing muons undergo time dilation, a miraculous effect predicted by Einstein's relativity.

Here is how the lifetime of crashing ("at rest") muons is measured:

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad...on-rutgers.pdf
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
"Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

http://www.stanford.edu/~jbarral/Dow...e1-Rapport.pdf
"Les muons qui arrivent au niveau du détecteur sont des particules ultra-relativistes dont la vitesse est proche de c et l'énergie comprise entre 7.5 MeV et 7.5 GeV La détection s'effectue grâce à deux scintillateurs et un bloc de verre au plomb. Les deux scintillateurs mesurent le passage d'une particule cosmique. Le verre au plomb arrête un certain nombre de particules, qui se désintègrent : on mesure alors leur temps de désintégration."

Pentcho Valev