# No Younger Twin in Einstein's Special Relativity

#### Pentcho Valev

In 1918 Einstein admitted that time dilation is contradictory in special relativity. He also informed the scientific community that only taking into account the turning-around acceleration of the traveling clock and then applying general relativity can resolve the contradiction:

"CRITIC: According to the principle of relativity the whole affair should proceed in the same way if it is represented in a coordinate system K', that is co-moving with clock U2. Then relative to K' it is clock U1 that is moving to and fro, with clock U2 remaining at rest. It then follows that at the end U1 should run behind U2, in contradiction with the above result. Surely even the most devoted followers of the theory will not assert that in the case of two clocks that have been positioned side by side, each one is running behind the other. RELATIVIST: Your last assertion is of course undisputable. However, the reason that that line of argument as a whole is untenable is that according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that is accelerated from time to time...A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis...According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

Clearly, without the acceleration (homogeneous-gravitational-field) crutch, Einstein's 1918 paper is in fact reductio ad absurdum:

An axiom (Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate) entails an absurdity (either clock is running behind the other) and should be rejected as false.

Einsteinians know that Einstein's 1918 paper effectively disproves special relativity, never mention it and even repudiate its main thesis from time to time:

Last edited:

#### Pentcho Valev

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 occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

"Enough strangeness occurs" is a euphemism and still it sounds idiotic. The original is immeasurably more idiotic (one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science):

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears..." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

Replies
5
Views
547
Replies
5
Views
654
Replies
2
Views
397
Replies
5
Views
614
Replies
2
Views
630