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 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 tale

    Special Relativity claims that objects that travel at near the speed of light 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 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  years
    older. 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 kinetic
    time 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 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 these opposing scenarios
    to ensure you understand what Einstein is suggesting.
Special Relativity
KINETIC Time Dilation
(dynamic, motion)

The twin that remained on Earth ages
FASTER

    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 work

    In Physics there are no paradoxes. Paradox simply means that the theorist has not yet discovered how
    our 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. Does
    the 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 dilation

    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. 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 dilation

    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
    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 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, 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). What
    they forgot to do is change the definition of the word year. What theorists have done is measure years with
    an 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 Relativity
GRAVITATIONAL 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
The year according to Einstein
"9.2 billion blips per
second on my accurate
clock times 31,500,000"
Travel to the past?

    Conclusions

    So let's put two and two together. The Twin Paradox is patently absurd and has no merit whatsoever. Time
    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
vs.
Special Relativity:
the absurd
Twin Paradox
Warping time?
Bottom of the tower

slow clock
          fast clock
fast clock           slow clock

Top of the tower
The year as it always has been
(and still is everywhere in the world)
Bill Gaede's
$5 hourglasses
The scientific definition of time

Home      

Mathematical Physics      
The Rope Hypothesis    


Nila and Bill      
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
.
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Science