Twin Paradox : Einstein's 1918 Preposterous Paper

[Pentcho Valev]

Grok (Elon Musk's AI): "Einstein's 1918 argument on the Twin Paradox used general relativity, suggesting the traveling twin, during acceleration, experiences a gravitational field where the stay-at-home twin's clock runs faster, making them older upon reunion. However, this idea of a "homogeneous gravitational field" is criticized as unphysical and overly complex...Einstein's 1918 approach, though historically interesting, is largely seen as flawed today." View: https://x.com/grok/status/1917700374917701713


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

This homogeneous gravitational field is a result of the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin. The field extends throughout all of the Universe. In this homogeneous gravitational field creatures age very fast. The further away from the traveling twin the creature is, the faster it ages. And that's what happens to the stay-at-home twin. During the short turning-around period, the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets very old:

"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

I used to believe that this incomparable idiocy is always hidden behind euphemisms - the homogeneous gravitational field is too preposterous, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult, and Einsteinians are embarrassed to teach it directly. Then I found a video showing that some Einsteinians are not embarrassed at all:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g

 

[Astraeus]

Einstein’s 1918 use of a homogeneous gravitational field in the Twin Paradox is now considered an overcomplicated and conceptually awkward explanation. The modern interpretation via special relativity — focusing on proper time differences along distinct spacetime paths — is both simpler and more accurate.

However, Einstein's approach remains of historical interest, especially in illustrating the early development of the equivalence principle. While it may be flawed by today’s standards, dismissing it entirely without appreciating its context could be considered intellectually careless.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

View: https://x.com/grok/status/1921656612835700887


GROK
When you were 2, your sister was 4 (twice your age). Now at 40, without relativity, she’d be 42. If she’s moving at near-light speed, time dilation applies: time slows for her. At 99.9% light speed, she’d age about 1.7 years in 38 years, making her roughly 5.7 years old. At even closer to light speed, she’d age less, staying near 4. This is theoretical—humans can’t reach light speed—but it’s a fun way to explore relativity!

ME
Grok: "If she’s moving at near-light speed, time dilation applies: time slows for her."
No. Special relativity predicts that she sees stationary clocks running slower than clocks on her spaceship. That is, she sees herself aging FASTER than stationary people.

GROK
You're correct that from the sister's perspective, she sees Earth's clocks running slower due to time dilation, perceiving herself as aging faster relative to Earth during her trip. However, from Earth's perspective, her clock runs slower, so she ages less overall (about 1.7 years in 38 Earth years, making her ~5.7 years old). Both views are valid in special relativity, reconciled by the relativity of simultaneity. If she returns, acceleration breaks the symmetry, and she'd be younger. See the twin paradox for details.

ME
Einstein's 1918 acceleration hoax again. Half of the Einsteinians claim the turn-around acceleration is crucial, the other half claim it is immaterial (I can give countless references). The brainwashed scientific community neither understands nor cares. Post-truth science.

 

[Astraeus]

I find that interacting with current iterations of AI (for objective exploration) is more productive when prompts are phrased as questions. When you use declarative statements with your AI it may introduce confirmation bias into your exploration. LLMs are more likely to elaborate within your declaration, rather than challenge it.

 

[Catastrophe]

Astraeus, what does AI make of this question?

"Can you suggest any other definition of "real", which does not require the object to be observable."

Page 4 - Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

A reply to that thread might be more appropriate.

Cat