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 might as well be talking to an asylum full of retarded patients. You're wasting their valuabletime. 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 asynonym 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 you buy? 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. An emperor's clothes taleSpecial Relativists claim that objects that travel at near the speed of light with respect to a given referencepoint 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, roundtrip voyage to the stars. Frank returns after one of ' his' years only to find that his brotheris and looks 50 years older. The relativistic equations predict that this is what will happen and both clocks will show this difference as well. 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. Undergravitational time dilation, General Relativity predicts that if Frank just stands still at the top of the EiffelTower 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... |

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. Debunking Einstein's gravitational time dilationIn Physics there are no paradoxes. Paradox simply means that the mathemagician has not discovered howour 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 showsthat 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 havesaid 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.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. 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. |

- 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. 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 readjusted. Debunking SR's 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 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 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, 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.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.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 calendar! |

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?

it takes a totally deranged or brainwashed person to believe such nonsense. The majority of people on

Earth merely reason that all of these mathematicians can't be wrong after so many years of research

and observation, especially if we have developed technology derived from time dilation. In other words,

they believe in time dilation on the basis of authority and on the amusing, popular notion that we prove

theories of Science through experiments and technology.

In Science, we are not interested in technology. And

not introduce evidence in order to sway the jury. It is in religion where they persuade in order to recruit.

In Science, we merely explain. We do so in order to understand. The explanation has to be rational.

Rational means that we can make a movie of the mechanism and visualize each step in the process.

The audience should be able to watch the movie and understand the theory without resorting to magic.

Time dilation is irrational because the mathemagician is telling you that two twins who are born at the

same time from the same mother differ in their ages by decades. This is patently absurd. Relativists

can't sweep this nonsense under the rug by asking you to learn Mathematics or by telling you that the

experiments have proven it. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. What is truth to one is a lie to another.

In Science, we don't care about proof or truth. We simply want rational explanation for a phenomenon.

We didn't need Special Relativity to tell us idiocy such as time dilation. We already had supernatural

explanations from traditional religions.

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 Scientific Method |