# Einstein's Most Preposterous Concept

#### Pentcho Valev

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself...Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother GETTING SUDDENLY OLDER. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, 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, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

The "enough strangeness" occurring during the short turning-around period and "suddenly" changing the age of all people on the earth sounds preposterous, and yet this is just a euphemism. The original, Einstein's 1918 homogenous gravitational field, is immeasurably more preposterous:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

That is, as the traveling twin turns around (but considers himself to be at rest), he finds that a homogeneous gravitational field appears and this homogeneous gravitational field causes the earth, with his brother and all other stationary people on it, accelerate towards him until it reaches speed v. Then the field disappears.

Why is the gravitational field "homogeneous"? Because otherwise it would not go up to the earth and would not cause its acceleration. Also, if the field is homogeneous, calculations are much easier.

Einstein's 1918 homogenous gravitational field is perhaps the most preposterous concept in the history of science. Einsteinians feel some shame and never teach it explicitly.

#### Atlan0001

A traveler travels to the Centauri system four light distant. No matter what his ship's accelerations (there is no absolute of velocity between stars), he will arrive in a Centauri system where he sees Sol, Earth, and his twin back on that Earth and irrevocably tied to that Sol, to be just four years behind him in time. Four years, not a dozen, not a hundred, not a thousand, but four. Four(!), the spatial, thus the light-time, separation between Sol and Centauri observed by him unaffected by his travel, his time of travel, his speed of travel, from one to the other.

Four(!) is the light-time history, the time, the traveler covered, a history observably ascended, to reach the Centauri system no matter what his ship's accelerations were that would effect his physicality . . . and regardless of his on-board clock time reading against the light-times observed in passing concerning Centauri to his front (speeding up in time) and Sol to his rear (speeding down in time by exactly the same rate of light-time passage as the speed up in time, light-time, forward ("speed up" / "speed down" just to identify between ascent in time (in history) forward from descent in time (in history) rearward)). Four(!) years is the light time history he crosses that will leave him observing Sol, the Earth, and thus his twin left back on Earth, relative to his situation relative to their situations regarding a shared space and time difference between them. Whether he made the trip in four hours or four-hundred years, he observes an ascent in time of four years, four light-years, to Centauri and concurrently observes a descent in time of four years, four light-years, from Sol . . . leaving the two always the same observed four light years apart in space and time, in space-time, in light time. The ascent in light-time history to a fixture (observed) and the descent in light-time history from a fixture (observed), seems always to be ignored. The ascent is never faster than the speed of light, even if it were four hours only (four years and four hours in a shipboard four hours, observed). The descent is always faster than the speed of light to have traveled in any way, at any acceleration, into a history negative in time, observed). The ascent in light-time history one way and descent in light-time history the other way cancels each other out in the traveler.

Last edited:

#### Pentcho Valev

Here an Einsteinian disproves Einstein 1918, Feynman and all those who teach that the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin/clock is crucial:

The brainwashed scientific community couldn't care less whether the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin/clock is crucial or "had no role to play at all". Singing "Divine Einstein" is all they can do:

#### VULVOX

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself...Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother GETTING SUDDENLY OLDER. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, 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, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

The "enough strangeness" occurring during the short turning-around period and "suddenly" changing the age of all people on the earth sounds preposterous, and yet this is just a euphemism. The original, Einstein's 1918 homogenous gravitational field, is immeasurably more preposterous:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

That is, as the traveling twin turns around (but considers himself to be at rest), he finds that a homogeneous gravitational field appears and this homogeneous gravitational field causes the earth, with his brother and all other stationary people on it, accelerate towards him until it reaches speed v. Then the field disappears.

Why is the gravitational field "homogeneous"? Because otherwise it would not go up to the earth and would not cause its acceleration. Also, if the field is homogeneous, calculations are much easier.

Einstein's 1918 homogenous gravitational field is perhaps the most preposterous concept in the history of science. Einsteinians feel some shame and never teach it explicitly.
Not go up to the earth? What are you talking about?

#### Atlan0001

Here an Einsteinian disproves Einstein 1918, Feynman and all those who teach that the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin/clock is crucial:
End quote. I didn't parse the quoting right.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but there is virtually no turn around acceleration and virtually no turn around time for travelers in space. They would go idle (if powering in traveling / if accelerating in travel), spin around in their own space like a top, and instantly go weightless with the idling if no artificial gravity is present, and resume powered travel (again if constantly powering in travel) in the opposite direction. And constant powering -- constant acceleration in space and time -- would change some of the rules of constant-speed-of-light observation, I suppose.

To begin with, the Earth observer is already witnessing a slowing down in the time of the traveler for the simple reason that distance is lengthening between observer and traveler and light is taking increasingly longer to cross the ever increasing distance in space and time between. This means that the traveler appears to the Earth observer to be slowing down in time of aging because of the slowness of the speed of light crossing the ever increasing distance. The reality is now that there are two travelers, not one, the unobserved and unobservable real time traveler and the observed traveler, by the Earth observer, with time ever increasing in separation between the two travelers and between two clocks (three clocks if you include the Earth observer's, four clocks if you include the Earth observer's clock as would be observed by the traveler observing Sol and the Earth to his rear going away in both space and time . . . over running light-time to overrun time. The real time traveler is getting beyond the capability -- per the speed of light -- of the ability of the Earth observer to observe the real-time traveler. The real time traveler in his own space and time is increasingly outrunning -- in the opposite direction -- the speed of light back to the Earth observer (which the traveler under speed of light observation by the Earth observer (who is appearing to be lengthening out by an ever-changing, ever lengthening, distance and increase in speed of change, which is in fact what is happening, and thus appearing to be slowing down ever more in time) cannot possibly do). Relativistic physicists take no cognition of this complex reality, this physic, and tell us what is observed by the Earth observer is the reality of the traveler on the other end of relative observation when the actuality is the traveler has been long lost to any possible speed of light observation by the Earth observer (physicists who deal in quantum mechanics should do no such thing). The real time traveler in his own space and time might as well be in a different space and time universe from his own pseudo-self increasingly farther to the rear of him in both space and time.

He, in his real time universe existence, is also unobservable to the observer far to his front. When he finally does give that observer an observation of him, as yet another pseudo-traveler, that oncoming pseudo traveler will appear to be closer to the observer than is the fact of the real traveler, with the real traveler on his way to catching up to his destination observed pseudo-self, the pseudo-self, and his pseudo-clock (under observation as the ship is under observation) speeding up in time as the real traveler and his real clock close upon the observer forward of his position (a fast shrinking triangulation of three points).

The Earth observer, of course, to the real traveler traveling away, slows down in time in the observation of the traveler with all the increasing distance, with all the lengthening, in light time between. The forward observer, forward of the oncoming traveler, tied to the star being approached at speed, just the opposite, speeding up in time, thus clock time (speeding up in history), and thus apparent aging, in the view, the observation, of the traveler. None of them, the observations, are of course real -- real time, but are seized upon as being the reality by those who go with relative observation as being the only, the sole, reality of universe existing : That there are never two universes, minimum, in existence, the real-time universe and the observed universe (the real time universe always forward in time, to very, very, far forward in time, of the observed universe (the sole exception always being the Big Bang / Planck / Infinity Horizon always current, always concurrent, with, to, both real time universes and observed universes)).

Last edited:

#### Pentcho Valev

Post-truth (post-sanity) science:

1. The turning-around acceleration suffered by the traveling twin is IMMATERIAL (these Einsteinians ignore Einstein's 1918 homogeneous gravitational field):

Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained." https://studylib.net/doc/18205412/part-i-special-relativity

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/

2. The turning-around acceleration suffered by the traveling twin is CRUCIAL (these Einsteinians do take into account Einstein's 1918 homogeneous gravitational field, without naming it explicitly):

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother GETTING SUDDENLY OLDER. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have JUMPED SUDDENLY from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. IT'S DURING THIS PERIOD OF ACCELERATION THAT YOU BECOME THE OLDER TWIN."
View: https://youtu.be/ERgwVm9qWKA?t=270

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
894
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
547
Replies
1
Views
634