Just ponder the extremeWhen dealing with a theory, it is best to attack its most patently absurd claim. If that doesn't strike a cord with your audience, you are wasting their valuable time. What is patently absurd in Albert Einstein's Special Relativity is the claim that a man can end up being many years older than his twin brother. Individuals who believe that this surrealistic metamorphosis is indeed possible should stop reading further. This site is not for them. An emperor's clothes taleSpecial Relativity claims that objects that travel at near the speed of light age at a slower pace than objectsthat are standing still or traveling very slowly with respect to the same reference point. This entails that time passes more slowly for travelers who travel at extremely fast speeds. Let's illustrate what the theorists are proposing. We have two twins: Al and Frank Einstein. They synchronize their perfectly accurate atomic clocks on Earth and Frank embarks at almost the speed of light on a round-trip voyage to the stars. Frank returns after one of ' his' years only to find that his brother is and looks 50 yearsolder. Einstein argues that his equations predict that not only do their respective clocks show great differences, but that one of the twins has physically and biologically aged more than the other. These are the breathtaking claims and conclusions of Special Relativity. In order to quickly see the fatal flaws in this thought experiment, it is worth comparing it side by side with the conclusions about time of General Relativity. The foregoing version of Special Relativity is known as kinetictime dilation because it involves motion. The version of General Relativity is known as gravitational time dilation.Rather than with motion, it deals with location. In other words, it has solely to do with the position of objects with respect to the center of gravity, typically of a celestial object such as the Earth. General Relativity states exactly the opposite of Special Relativity. It predicts that if Frank just stands still atthe top of the Eiffel Tower while his brother merely sits on a chair at the foot of the tower, the opposite effect occurs. Al ages slower because he is closer to the center of gravity (i.e., the center of the Earth) whereas Frank ages faster as a result that he is in a weaker gravitational field. Let's illustrate these opposing scenarios to ensure you understand what Einstein is suggesting. |

Special RelativityKINETIC Time Dilation(dynamic, motion) The twin that remained on Earth agesFASTER |

To summarize, Special Relativity deals with KINETIC time dilation a scenario that involves motion. General Relativity deals with GRAVITATIONAL time dilation, a scenario that only involves location. The former is a dynamic scenario. The latter is a static scenario. If you travel far from the source of gravity (e.g., the Earth),SR predicts that you will age slower. Conversely, if you stand absolutely still far from the source of gravity,GR predicts that you will age faster. It is as a result of these two opposing effects that the controllers of the Global Positioning System (GPS) must add SR kinetic effects and subtract GR gravitational effects in order to adjust the atomic clocks on board the satellites. Einstein's gravitational time dilation doesn't workIn Physics there are no paradoxes. Paradox simply means that the theorist has not yet discovered howour Universe works. Those who argue that GPS wouldn't work if relativity were wrong have missed the point. The fact that GPS works does not imply that the explanation relativity offers is rational. Doesthe fact that GPS works confirm that time is a standalone physical object as General Relativity treats it in its rendition of gravity: the warpage of spacetime? Is time one of the threads comprising a fishnet? In other words, we are questioning the qualitative physical interpretations of the equations. Indeed, GPS was perfected through trial and error and not through equations. That's why it 'works'. Several tests showed the amount of time that the clocks on board would gain or lose at different speeds and altitudes. Project managers incorporated these adjustments into the system that is out there today and the entire system needs to be tweaked by 38 microseconds per day! It's as if you had to readjust your alarm clock every night because it doesn't work right. Does this prove that your time is stretched? These adjustments were determined empirically by NASA (Gravity Probe A) and not through Einstein's equations. As Tom van Flandern who worked on the GPS project testified: - "...the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000
nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch. They have basically blown off Einstein." Nevertheless, it is clear that these corrections have nothing to do with the explanation GR offers for WHY(i.e., causes, mechanisms) the clocks to advance and retard. It makes no sense in Physics to say that the CONCEPT gravity bends the CONCEPT time. Therefore, the fact that GPS works is not proof that Relativity is correct. It is 'proof' that those who believe that equations translate automatically into physical interpretations are outside the bounds of Physics. Overthrowing GR's Gravitational time dilationSo, how do we go about debunking the Twin Paradox?Let's first dispose of GR's 'principle' of gravitational time dilation. What if we test Einstein's 'principle' withtwo hourglasses? Relativists shouldn't have any objections because they argue that all clocks will exhibit the effects of gravitational time dilation and in the same way. In fact, an hourglass, like a pendulum, is a gravitational clock. It works by gravitation. Therefore, if we are to verify the relation between time and gravity there is no better clock. We take one hourglass to the top of the Eiffel Tower and leave its twin on the ground. To our surprise we discover that Einstein's prediction doesn't materialize. In fact, the opposite occurs. The grains in the hourglass that is closer to the center of gravity fall faster than those of the one at the top of the tower. And no, you don't need to strain your imagination or go to college to realize this. If we take the clock higher to where there is hardly any gravity, not a single grain will fall to the bottom bulb of the hourglass! The grains will be floating in the upper bulb. Should we follow Einstein's logic and conclude that time has stopped because no grain falls through the neck between the bulbs! That's more or less the absurd reasoning theorists apply when they claim that time has dilated. |

- Relativists boast that the Twin Paradox shows the usefulness of measuring time with '
accurate' clocks. Actually, time dilation shows exactly the opposite. It shows that atomic (cesium) clocks are not accurate or reliable at all if ground controllers have to tweak the GPS clocks forward and backward before they send them out into orbit and then adjust them daily to match the values they determined empirically. At a different distance or at a different speed, even atomic clocks need to be constantly readjusted. SR's amusing kinetic time dilationLet's now look at Special Relativity's kinetic time dilation. Ultimately, the purpose of Einstein's imaginaryexercise is to scientifically determine which of the two twins is correct. Was it brother Frank who traveled to the stars and aged 1 year or was it brother Al who stayed on Earth and now looks like Frank's grandfather? Relativity concludes that they are both correct and leaves it at that. Time went by swiftly for the twin that remained on Earth and at a snail's pace for the one that went to the stars. Relativity further reaches the patently absurd conclusion that one twin born on the same day as his brother is 50 years older than him. But ask yourself now, how can this possibly be? How could 50 years go by for one twin and only 1 year for the other? Is this a rational conclusion? Or should we conclude instead, perhaps, that Mathematics is NOT the language of Physics? The definition of the word yearA year has always been defined and is still defined as the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Anotherdefinition has it that a year consists of 365 days, each of which is defined as one spin of the Earth. The NIST defines the year as 365 days in its Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) (pg 67). Either way we don't need to know any high level Math to solve this one. The Earth either went around the Sun 50 times or 1 time, it can't be both. If the Earth went around the Sun 50 times, then the twin that remained on Earth is correct and the traveling twin, his clock, and his precise calculations are simply dead wrong! 50 orbits of the Earth (i.e., 50 years) have taken place irrespective of what any atomic clock in the Universe says. The number of times the Earth goes around the Sun is not only an objective criterion, but it is the standard for the word year.But then, why does the traveling twin's clock show that only 1 year went by? Where's the catch? The way we initially established the standard we call the second is by chopping up the year into 31.5 million pieces. The entire orbit of the Earth is 940 million kilometers and this makes the second approximately equal to 30 kilometers. When you say that 1 second passed on your wristwatch, you are unwittingly comparing the motion of the hand on your watch that measures seconds with this distance traveled by the Earth. We now have the foundations to define the word time.time: a relation between two motions- Qualitatively, we have before/after, early/late, sooner/later. Quantitatively, we have seconds, minutes, hours...
However, the mathemagicians decided to change the definition of the word second in 1967. Since then,relativists define the second as 9.2 billion blips of the cesium wave (light emitted by atomic clocks). Whatthey forgot to do is change the definition of the word year. What theorists have done is measure years withan atomic clock rather than with a calendar. And they all agree that an atomic clock measures time wholly inaccurately at different speeds and at different distances from the center of the Earth. Therefore, it is ludicrous for relativists to attempt to calculate how old you are with equations or by counting seconds on an atomic clock or to make the outrageous claim that there is an accurate clock anywhere in the Universe. |

General RelativityGRAVITATIONAL Time Dilation(static, location) The twin that remained on Earth ages SLOWER |

Al Einstein Frank Einstein |

Albert Einstein's$1,000,000 atomic (cesium) clocks |

General Relativity GRAVITATIONAL Time Dilation War |

"9.2 billion blips per second on my accurate clock times 31,500,000" |

Travel to the past?

dilation is irrational because the theoretician is telling you that twins who are born minutes from each other can

later differ in their ages by decades because the calculations say so. Whether one of the twins travels at a speed

close to that of light or his perfectly accurate clock counts seconds faster or slower, the Earth has made a given

number of revolutions around the Sun when the twins meet again. We just need to count how many times the

Earth went around the Sun to figure out their ages.

Al Einstein Frank Einstein |

Special Relativity:the absurd Twin Paradox |

Warping time?

Bottom of the tower

slow clock fast clock

slow clock fast clock

The year as it always has been(and still is everywhere in the world) |

Bill Gaede's$5 hourglasses |

The scientific definition of time |

.

To comment on any of the pages in this website go to: Rational Science |