Just ponder the extreme
When 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 might as well be talking to an asylum full of retarded patients. You're wasting their valuable
What is patently absurd in Special Relativity is the claim that someone can age faster and end up being older
than his twin brother. If you can't get past such obvious nonsense, you should not read further. You are either
a deluded individual or someone who simply worships authority. You can't overcome the formidable name
Einstein because you have been conditioned by the 'respectable' media and your teachers to treat it as a
synonym of intelligence. You cannot come around to believing that a sacred icon of the stature of Albert Einstein,
venerated by billions everywhere, sold such a whopping Emperor's Clothes tale to so many gullible people...
including yourself. And if you bought the nonsense of the Twin Paradox as proven truth, what other snake oil did
No. If a patently absurd explanation does not cause you to question Relativity, this site is not for you. You might
as well move on and keep swallowing more rubbish from the mathematical establishment.
So, let's debunk this sacred tenet of the Religion of Relativity and place the seed of doubt in people who can
still keep an open mind and reason on their own. This site is for individuals who can overcome the intense
brainwashing the Mathematical Establishment has subjected them to.
Special Relativists claim that objects that travel at near the speed of light with respect to a given reference
point age at a slower pace than objects that 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 mathemagicians are saying to get into the nitty gritty. We have two twins: Al and
Frank Einstein. They synchronize their perfectly accurate atomic clocks on Earth and Frank embarks on a
lightning -- at almost the speed of light -- roundtrip voyage to the stars. Frank returns after one of 'his' years
only to find that his brother is and looks 50 years older. Relativists argue that their equations predict that not
only do their clocks show great differences, but that one of them has physically and biologically aged more
than the other. These are the outrageous claims and conclusions of Special Relativity. They make for great
for Hollywood movies. What we're questioning here is whether these entertaining fantasies have anything to
do with Science.
In order for you to see clearly how ludicrous this mathematical theory is, let's juxtapose Special Relativity's
kinetic time dilation embodied in the Twin Paradox and General Relativity's gravitational time dilation. Under
gravitational time dilation, General Relativity predicts that if Frank just stands still at the 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 this for the benefit of those who
have trouble understanding...
KINETIC Time Dilation
The twin that remained on Earth ages
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.
In Physics there are no paradoxes. Paradox simply means that the mathemagician has not discovered how
our Universe works. Those who argue that GPS wouldn't work if General Relativity were wrong have missed
the point. The fact that GPS works does not imply that the explanation Relativity offers is rational. It shows
that people who raise such arguments cannot distinguish between a description and an explanation. The
description is correct. The explanation is irrational! This is where the fallacy lies. We could just as well have
said that GPS works because angels move the satellites around.
Indeed, GPS was perfected through trial and error. That's why it 'works'. GPS is Technology (developing
gadgets, useful, it works). GPS is not Science (rational explanations). 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. It was trial and error from beginning
to end. These corrections have nothing to do with the explanation GR offers for WHY (i.e., WHAT CAUSES)
the clocks to advance and retard. Would it make any sense for Relativity to explain that anger bends love.
And likewise, does it make sense in Physics to say that the CONCEPT gravity bends the CONCEPT time?
How do you bend a concept?
Therefore, the fact that GPS works is not proof that Relativity is correct. It is proof that relativists use the
words proof, truth and fact to shove their theories down your throat through authority.
So, 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' with
two 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. The alleged 'principle' falls flat on its face. Unlike with
the atomic clocks which rely on waves, 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. 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. Indeed, following
Einstein's logic, we should conclude that time has stopped altogether because not a single grain goes
through the neck between the bulbs! That's the type of absurd reasoning relativists apply when they claim
that time itself has dilated. What sense does it make to say that a concept such as time dilated, anyway?
Dilate is a verb that can only be applied to physical objects.
Actually, time dilation shows exactly the opposite. It shows that atomic (cesium) clocks are not accurate
or reliable at all. Controllers have to tweak these clocks forward and backward before they send them
out into orbit. At a different distance or at a different speed, even atomic clocks need to be constantly
Let's now look at Special Relativity's kinetic time dilation. Ultimately, the purpose of Einstein's imaginary
exercise 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 most
patently absurd conclusion accepted by all Nobel Prizes in 'physics': that one twin born on the same day as
his brother is and looks 50 years older than him. It is gullible individuals who blinded by their unquestionable
respect for authority have allowed themselves to believe in such ridiculous explanations.
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? Do you really believe that the Nobel mathemagicians are right simply
because all of them voted for the theory? Should we accept it because the equations and the calculations
say so? Should we also believe the Flat Earth Theory if all the mathemagicians voted for it? Or is this a case
where equations cannot substitute for or be extrapolated to the real world of Physics? Should we conclude
instead, perhaps, that Mathematics is NOT the language of Physics?
The definition of the word year
A year has always been defined and is still defined as the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Another
definition 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, his calculations, and all relativists that ever
lived are simply dead wrong! 50 orbits or 50 years have gone by irrespective of what the clocks, the
calculations or Einstein says! The number of times the Earth goes around the Sun is an objective criterion.
But then, why does the traveling twin's clock show that only 1 year went by? Where's the catch? How could
relativists have lost their bearings so much after 100 years of Relativity? Why did they never figure out
something that is so patently obvious?
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.
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). What
they forgot to do is change the definition of the word year.
Let's put this mathemagical sleight of hand in the appropriate context. What relativists have done since
the days of Einstein is attempt to tell you how old you are by adding up the seconds on their inaccurate,
adjustable, atomic clocks rather than by counting the number of Earth orbits. Of course, if ANY watch or
clock is taken for a ride to the Andromeda Galaxy and back at the speed of light, that clock will go out of
whack just like the hourglass slowed down to a stop at zero gravity. ALL clocks WILL be affected by motion
and by their proximity to a source of gravity. 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. In essence, relativists are using a watch as a
GRAVITATIONAL Time Dilation
The twin that remained on Earth ages
|Al Einstein Frank Einstein
$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"
|Al Einstein Frank Einstein
|The year as it always has been
(and still is everywhere in the world)
|The scientific definition of time
|To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:
Rational Scientific Method