There's no ``twin paradox''. One of the twins follows a geodesic in spacetime; the other can't, because the solution of the geodesic equation is unique, so it must follow another curve between the same spacetime points.

The geodesic between two spacetime points maximizes the proper time, so the proper time along any other curve is less than that along the geodesic.

Furthermore, proper time is invariant under global Lorentz transformations, that's why the geodesic isn't equivalent to any other curve and no two curves are equivalent, since they can't be mapped one to another by a global Lorentz transformation.

Scientific answer to the question What is really “twin paradox”? is given, say, in SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_a_debate_about_twins_paradox_so_bad#view=65a2717b5ad2416bd20f0928/59/60/60 , pages 59, 60;

- including yeah, in mainstream physics, and, of course, in the SR, only a part of real utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s spacetime with [5]4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

- i.e. really only space with 4D metrics (icτ,X,Y,Z ), “i” is imaginary unit, i.e. Minkowski and pseudo Riemannian spaces, is really, and, of course erroneously, postulated as the spacetime,

- as that the really the space cτ-dimension with imaginary unit [in “classical” mechanics the metrics is Euclidian (cτ,X,Y,Z), though] is postulated as the time dimension.

But that in the mainstream above isn’t a real reason the paradox exists for which, in Lorentz 1904 theory, where the 4D spacetime is Euclidian and absolute, the paradox doesn’t exist.

The paradox really completely rigorously scientifically follows from the two main SR postulates (i) – that there is no Matter’s absolute spacetime, and (ii) – so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

From these postulates - and so from the SR - any number of really senseless consequence follow, the twin paradox is only one of this – and really it appears simply at two time application of much more simple and evident Dingle objection to the SR.

More in detail what is the paradox and its mainstream physics “solutions” see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox

Cheers

Dear Dr. Stam Nicolis

I am always grateful for your willingness to participate in a scientific discussion with me. I am honored and thankful.

The first part of my counterargument is that you are refuting my argument using the theory I am refuting instead of using Physics (not Mathematics).

My argument:

a) I used Minkowski's Interpretation of Lorentz Transformations. IF you consider that the vertical and the horizontal axes define a preferred reference frame, then all inertial reference frames can be defined by rotations of the preferred reference frame.

b) I showed that even in General Relativity (e.g., Schwarzschild Metric), the boost comes from Energy Conservation, which defines a falling velocity at any given distance r. In other words, even in General Relativity, the boost only depends upon velocity.

c) I showed that Hubble's Laws indicate that Galaxies are sitting still on that reference frame. The Milky Way galaxy's Absolute Velocity is 600 km/s or 0.2% of c. That is not a coincidence.

In other words, I am using Physics to evaluate Relativity. You are using Relativity to support Relativity and saying nothing about my argument.

That only proves you know your Relativity. It doesn't show that you understand Physics.

Don't take this statement as any indication that I don't respect your education and background. I do. I also respect your intellectual honesty.

All our observations were never done starting from a relativistic frame and ending in a lab frame (at rest with respect to the galaxy or my absolute reference frame).

In other words, we don't have data on where the twins start in a spacecraft traveling at 0.99c. One leaves the craft traveling in the opposite direction at ... travel for at -0.99c, turn around, and catch up with the spacecraft. Which Twin would be older? My theory tells me that traveling Twin would age faster.

This means that there is no data to prove me wrong.

There is Math (I derived the elapsed time for the accelerated sections) and Logic (equivalent inertial frames should yield the same aging) to support my ideas.

IN SUMMARY

I wouldn't go into your Rabbit Hole (defending Relativity using Relativity).

Please, work on a level field like I did.

The assumption that spacetime outside a central mass distribution has an asymptotically flat far away region which is globally empty is inconsistent with the general principle of relativity. In such a spacetime the accelerated twin cannot say that he is at rest because the gravitational field he experiences has no source. The cosmic shell determines not only the inertial properties of spacetime inside it, but also its temporal properties. This is the physical significance of the cosmic time effect. In this sense, Marco Pereira , your argumentation or critique points to an important research direction, with respect to the twin paradox and the principle of relativity.

The problem in your SR is the misinterpretation of the term "stationary" - it is the measuring frame of which there is only one in any experiment. E.g., the moving frame's parameters do NOT change their physical characteristics simply because of their velocity relative to the measuring (stationary) frame.

It's perception.

Marco Pereira says, "One cannot assign the slowed aging of the Traveling Twin to the accelerated sections. There is nothing magical about them." The principle-of-equivalence is the magic that you seek. When you accelerate, your unique spacetime that inertial observers do not observe, is a curved spacetime, and in curved spacetime, time dilates.

George Soli

I will present my argument in simple statements and ask you people to show disagreement if you have one:

John Hodge

You said: The problem in your SR is the misinterpretation of the term "stationary" - it is the measuring frame of which there is only one in any experiment.

In the twin experiment, there are two reference frames. They are both measuring the passage of time.

There is also an absolute reference frame. We all know that we can measure our absolute velocity with respect to the CMB.

So, there are at least three reference frames in the twin experiment.

I claim that the CMB and the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface are the same reference frame (just from two different epochs).

You said without anything to support your statement: When you accelerate, your unique spacetime that inertial observers do not observe, is a curved spacetime, and in curved spacetime, time dilates.

There is no measurement like that. Every time dilation due to gravity is defined by the virtual velocity I explained in my presentation. Here it is again for your convenience

This is the velocity you plug into your boost to get the amount of time dilation.

So, this BS about inertial observers does not observe; every experiment of Gravitational Time Dilation was done using inertial observers (e.g., a satellite in orbit, an airplane with an atomic clock, etc.).

What you claim to be curved spacetime is just a sequence of rotations, and one can calculate the angle at every step of the so-called curved spacetime.

Stephen I. Ternyik

You said: The assumption that spacetime outside a central mass distribution has an asymptotically flat far away region which is globally empty is inconsistent with the general principle of relativity.

This is obviously wrong. Just pick up the Schwarzschild metric and make r->oo

You will get a flat Minkowski Metric. Hence, I don't know what are you talking about.

You cannot support your argument using the Postulate that my argument is debunking.

This is what I am questioning:

The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion.

It is called a principle because it has nothing to support it. In other words, it is a hypothesis proven wrong by the Twin Paradox and by the actual observation of expanded subatomic particle lifetimes.

The observation of "time dilation" for relativistic particles is what dooms this Postulate.

In other words, you misunderstood the meaning of "postulate".

Stam Nicolis

You said:

There's no ``twin paradox''.

I don't question any of these statements. They are all correct. That doesn't mean that the accelerated sections of the trip are responsible for the aging calculated using a boost from Lorentz transformations.

My point is that one can conceivably reach 0.9999 c in a day, coast for a year, turn around in two days, coast for another year, and slow down in another day. Acceleration only affects these four days. At most, the twins should differ in age by four days. The coasting sections should provide identical aging.

The aging (time dilation) associated with the accelerated sections is given by Minkowski's spacetime projection.

Since we know (have experimental observations of time dilation), the postulate that all inertial frames are equivalent is wrong and there is a preferred reference frame - that exists in 4D.

That is where my theory was written.

It is that simple.

Marco Pereira

Exactly. Your thinking there are multiple measuring frames creates the paradox. Using SR as only one measuring frame is the correct use of SR.

John Hodge

What are you saying? The "measuring" in the Twin Paradox are the Twins' aging.

Are you telling me that you cannot have two twins in the universe?

Are you telling me that Physics cannot have multiple reference frames and predict what happens in them?

You said: Using SR as only one measuring frame is the correct use of SR.

Who says so?...:) You are the fellow who claims that Matter is constantly being created in the Universe, disregarding the Principle of Energy Conservation (a sacrosanct principle)...:)

Even in SR, one can have any number of reference frames...:)

Marco - can you please send me the article as pdf or email me the link ?

Im not able to see it.

My email; [email protected]

Many thanks

Harri

This is not an article. It has only one integral.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN_AgouJdUc

I made a video. I gave up trying to publish my work in a visible place. 18 years of censorship is enough.

HI. Until you understand what time is, you will not understand how the twin paradox occurs. Back to the true meaning of the time. The twin paradox is real

Best regard

Ittipat Roopkom

I have no problem understanding what Time is.

To say that the Twin Paradox is real doesn't mean anything.

Compare that with me saying that:

a) the twin paradox was never lifted.

b) the observation of time dilation implies that the postulate: All inertial frames are equivalent" is wrong. They are not.

That is how you say something.

Best regards,

Itipat

By the way, "time particles"... Good luck finding them in the Large Hadron Collider...:)

Don't you think that you are doing bald speculation??? What is the observation that requires time to be a particle? Just asking...

It doesn't make any sense.

lol, thank you. I will try it.

best regard

Many thanks for your detailed elaboration Marco Pereira You are saying that as we travel further away from our massive object, the complex effects of gravity fade, and spacetime straightens out, confirming the asymptotic flatness of the Schwarzchild solution as I do understand your well structured argumentation. This idea isn't just an abstract concept; it forms a cornerstone of many fundamental theorems in general relativity, including those regarding black holes and the behavior of gravitational waves at great distances. The Schwarzschild solution, which details the surrounding gravitational field of a non-rotating mass, means analyzing how the metric behaves as the distance from the mass increases indefinitely. The exercise demonstrates that, at future null infinity—that is, the location where outgoing light rays ultimately end up—the Schwarzschild metric essentially simplifies to the Minkowski metric, the metric for flat spacetime.

In my library of scientific methodology, a postulate is a helpful way of providing proof to mathematical propositions and scientific allegations; it is used as a basis for more statements; a postulate in physics often implies to be satisfied into real world, not the case in mathematics. In physics we will test implications with experiments. Axioms/postulates is the start point of the logical machinery in mathematics; hypothesis is the start point of the logical machinery in physics.

HI Marco, finally I was able to view it.

Firstly, great job on explaining your theory, not an easy concept to convey.

I will need to view a few times for my Brain to fully process.

what has piqued my curiosity straight off is the nature of the 4D manifold.

I attempt to imagine the nature and cohesion of the manifold….

does it have defined boundaries?

or is the question meaningless given nothing really will be reaching the boundaries.

is it a no boundary condition?

what will be the quanta of the Boundary elements?

what energy drives its own motion?

I am writing these things which I ponder about as I am watching .

The math is quite elegant, which is a good sign!

to be continued,

best

H

Hi Harri Shore

does it have defined boundaries?

My thinking is guided by Occam's Razor. In other words, the space is boundless if no observation requires boundaries (I am speaking of the 4D spatial manifold). The 3D hypersurface or LEHU is bounded, of course. It is a finite object.

I assume that the price of creating or destroying empty spaces is zero. Once matter is created (fragmentation of the Outermost Contraction Layer), an entropic barrier is formed. That entropic barrier to recombination only goes away when the universe becomes homogeneous again (G goes down, and all stars, black holes, etc. release their particles). All isotopes decay into protons and electrons, and these get spread over large volumes.

When that happens, the entropic barrier to recombination should disappear, and the universe should unravel.

It is irrelevant to the theory whether the 4D spatial manifold is created instantaneously or has an infinite size. For example, one could consider that the universe is being created as the lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface moves. That would introduce the need to explain "space creation". There is no data to support any model for that.

This means that Occam's Razor will accept the simplest possible model and that is "infinite spatial manifold creation costs nothing and is created instantaneously". There is no point in talking about something nobody can probe. it is like discussing the sex of angels... Who cares?

What energy drives its own motion?

As I mentioned, the LEHU is finite, and it has no boundary (it is a closed hypersurface). We also have no boundaries with respect to the radial direction (4th dimension). We are bound to the hypersurface because we are surfing the Inner Dilation Layer and that restricts our ability to power ourselves at will along that direction.

You will like the math even better when I present the derivation of natural laws, which I will do next.

Marco

The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369143082_Physics_letter_Cosmical_observations_and_experiments_against_the_relativistic_explanations_of_the_Doppler_effect_and_the_Gravitational_effect_of_the_light

Stephen I. Ternyik

You said: The assumption that spacetime outside a central mass distribution has an asymptotically flat far away region which is globally empty is inconsistent with the general principle of relativity.

My referring to the weak value of postulates (when facing observations that challenge them) is because I am using the Subatomic Particle Time Dilation and Hubble's Observations of galaxies having very small idiosyncratic Absolute Velocity (including the Milky Way with 0.2% c) to challenge the General Principle of Relativity - the one that says that all inertial frames are equivalent.

I am saying they aren't and the principle is debunked by observations. This also means that Relativity is wrong and that the velocity that goes into Lorentz Transformation is the Absolute Velocity, not the relative velocity.

Since our lab reference frame has at most 0.2c velocity, we conflate Absolute and Relative velocities.

That said, the Twin Paradox exposes the issue with the general principle of relativity.

I used the Minkowski Rotation Argument to calculate the elapsed time for an accelerated section with constant acceleration. Dr. Nicollis stated:

There's no ``twin paradox''.

To which I replied: I agree with all these statements. To contest my argument, he just needs to calculate the elapsed time for a day with constant acceleration such that at the end of the day, the velocity is 0.9999 c.

That is a problem since there is no metric with constant acceleration..>:)

That is a simple problem. If anyone creates that metric, calculates the geodesics, etc, the result will be the same as my simple calculation.

You are left with the coasting sections once you eliminate the relevance of accelerated sections. According to Relativity, they should be equivalent, which means the aging should be the same.

Q.E.D.

####################################

Of course, if you don't have the absolute velocity (you have since we already measured it with respect to CMB), or if your velocities are small, you can use any reference frame and Relativity.

Relativity fails for Relativistic velocities...:) Because those are absolute velocities (everything else is still on the space fabric).

Marco Pereira

How you do twist things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7onqILCwOJ0

Re-examines SR. I'm the fellow that has a STOE model that corresponds to both GR and the small, that has A solution for many contradictions, and problem observations. The STOE works.

SR applies to only one measuring frame at a time. Then only predicting the measurements in that frame. And no parameter in another frame changes because of relative velocity, alone.

The scientific answer to the question “what is “twin paradox”, and what are rather numerous – and all erroneous, mainstream physics addressing to this paradox, is given in SS post on page 1, so in this case more see the post, here only a few comments to a few errors in other posts.

That

“…we don't have data on where the twins start in a spacecraft traveling at 0.99c. One leaves the craft traveling in the opposite direction at ... travel for at -0.99c, turn around, and catch up with the spacecraft. Which Twin would be older? My theory tells me that traveling Twin would age faster.….”

- is simply incorrect. That in any 3-rd inertial frame after any close-loop travel the twin-traveler is younger than twin-homebody independently on what travel was, including if twin-traveler starts either ahead or back to both twins motion,

- was known yet in ~ 1908, when the paradox was formulated. And that happens in both cases

– if the 3-rd frame is “in accordance with the SR”, i.e. is absolutely equivalent to [start] both twin frame and to the traveler’s 2 frames when he moves from and back to the initial frame,

- and if the 3-rd frame is absolute, i.e. is at rest in the absolute 3D space of Matter’s absolute spacetime.

Again, really the twin paradox in the SR exists only as 3 times applied Dingle objection that follows from the main SR postulatesthat (i) – there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) – that all/every frames are absolutely completely equally equivalent and legitimate.

Including in this case for the proofs that these postulates, and so the SR, are wrong, and so – by completely rigorous Proof by Contradiction – Matter’s spacetime is absolute, etc., it is completely enough to have the Dingle objection, while the paradox in this case is nothing else than some toy exercise, that nothing essential adds to Dingle..

In this

“…Marco Pereira says, "One cannot assign the slowed aging of the Traveling Twin to the accelerated sections. There is nothing magical about them."…”

- Marco Pereira is quite correct, while that

“…. The principle-of-equivalence is the magic that you seek. When you accelerate, your unique spacetime that inertial observers do not observe, is a curved spacetime, and in curved spacetime, time dilates.….”

- is as really scientifically too strange claim. Nothing happens with Matter’s absolute spacetime when anything, including some accelerations, happen in Matter.

Including, say, that is experimentally confirmed at experiments with muons, more see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02339.pdf [physics.gen-ph] 14 Aug 2015, paper “Muons, gravity and time” ,

- and so, say, when the “spacetime curvature at acceleration” – and corresponding “time dilation”, were used by Tolman in his solution of the twin paradox, the “solution” quite logically inevitably turns out to be rather strange, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox

, where this “solution” is considered among a number of others.

Cheers

Akram Louiz

You should realize that Special Relativity is just a reincarnation of Lorentz Transformations.

Discussion Michelson-Morley's experiment using Galilean Relativity is not consistent with Lorentz Transformation.

You mentioned that you are "free to change the velocity of light when it is reflected". Lasers have light being reflected. If you were to change the velocity of light or the wavelength, resonance conditions would change and the laser wouldn't work.

So, changing the speed of light because of a reflection is debunked by the existence of lasers. Am I wrong?

Sergey Shevchenko

I said: “…we don't have data on where the twins start in a spacecraft traveling at 0.99c. One leaves the craft traveling in the opposite direction at ... travel for at -0.99c, turn around, and catch up with the spacecraft. Which Twin would be older? My theory tells me that traveling Twin would age faster.….”

You said: - is simply incorrect. That in any 3-rd inertial frame after any close-loop travel the twin-traveler is younger than twin-homebody independently on what travel was, including if twin-traveler starts either ahead or back to both twins motion,

You said that but you didn't show me where is the data. Just saying something doesn't mean it is correct. It can be pure nonsense.

There is no experiment like the one I proposed because we cannot travel at relativistic speeds.

Sergey. Don't postulate reality. That is what one does in Religion.

I calculated the proper elapsed time for a constant acceleration section of a trip.

Why don't you show us what is the value of that?

That is the subject of this discussion.

Marco Pereira please read the physics letter that I shared with you in order to understand my opinion.

Yes Marco Pereira . Relative position only takes into account the spatial coordinates and describes the location of an object in relation to another object. Absolute position, on the other hand, considers both space and time, providing a more complete understanding of an object's position in the universe. Absolute position in spacetime is a fixed value. It is determined by the laws of physics and does not change, unlike relative position which is dependent on the reference point. Am wishing you continued success with your important research and power of scientific imagination.

Stephen I. Ternyik

You said: Absolute position, on the other hand, considers both space and time.

According to Relativity, that is incorrect. To define a position, you have to define a reference frame. That reference frame can be moving (according to Relativity). They are all moving since there isn't anything standing still in the 3D universe. In addition, GR has the passage of time to be dependent upon Gravitation and velocity, so time is also not defined.

So, the position itself is not defined.

I added an extra spatial dimension and asserted that the 3D locus of all matter in the universe has a shape - a hyperspherical hypersurface.

That hypersurface has its radius increasing at the speed of light according to an Absolute Time (that times the expansion of the Universe). In other words, the Absolute Time is defined by the process it times, like any other clock.

On the hypersurface, one can define a Radial Direction (a vector perpendicular to our 3D Universe on every point). That vector and the three other mutually perpendicular vectors within the 3D Universe define an absolute reference frame.

So, with the addition of an extra spatial dimension, the addition of a well defined expansion at lightspeed, one can define absolute time and an absolute reference frame.

Notice that for Physics, the only thing that is relevant with respect to the extra spatial dimension are: the 4D radius and the orientation of our 3D volumes with respect to the Radial Direction (a vector that we cannot point using our 3D vectors).

Thanks

There are a lot of problems with trying to correct Einstein's mistakes. I went back to the original German that Einstein wrote in and found it wasn't even translated properly into English - so that causes a big mess from the get-go.

Cosmin Visan

Self-delusional nonsense, Cosmin...:)

I bet this is not the World your Consciousness built, is it? I am telling you that your idea is idiotic.

I am sure your Consciousness immediately jumped into another Timeline...:) or Universe...:)

Roger Anderton

My correction of Einstein's mistake is clear. If Dr. Nicolis wants to show how the elapsed time is calculated for the simplest possible model (constant acceleration), I would be happy to see it.

I bet it is g_ij = Lorentz metric with v replaced by a*t

So, my derivation is consistent with GR. So, there are no loose ends in my argument.

Dr. Nicolis' argument didn't have any meat in it.

I don't want to pick on Dr. Nicolis, but I saw 4 recommendations on his answer and I don't think it deserves.

I would like to hear from the people who consider otherwise why did they click "Recommend"...:)

It seems like a spineless was to reinforce their own religious dogmas (Relativity is a both a Cult of Personality and a Cult)

Cosmin Visan

That is an idiotic idea...:)

Let me support my statement. In Physics, hypotheses and paradigms are used to predict or explain something.

This stupid idea does not predict or explain anything.

Do you have observations of Time Travelers... Foretelling the Future? If so, tell me the next Lottery Numbers...:) If I win, I will surely call you a genius...and retract calling your idea an idiocy...:)

Cosmin Visan...:)

Where are my lottery numbers...:)

Dear Marco

“…..I said: “…we don't have data on where the twins start in a spacecraft traveling at 0.99c. One leaves the craft traveling in the opposite direction at ... travel for at -0.99c, turn around, and catch up with the spacecraft. Which Twin would be older? My theory tells me that traveling Twin would age faster.….”

You said: - is simply incorrect…”

- I repeat that claim in the quotes above is incorrect, and that in any 3-rd inertial frame - and really- after any close-loop travel the twin-traveler is always younger than twin-homebody independently on what travel was, including if twin-traveler starts either ahead or back to both twins motion.

Here I only add that “in any 3-rd inertial frame” in my post is because of that the fact above is calculated/known even in the SR.

At that, as that is rigorously scientifically shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one from 3 main papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where cτ,X,Y,Z, are 4D space dimensions, ct is the time dimension,

- and everything in Matter exists and happens just in the absolute spacetime; and, at that, all parameters of everything have real values – while in any moving in 3D XYZ space frame most of measured parameters of everything are unreal, [though some – called “invariants” are “real”].

So utmost simple consideration of any physical situation is utmost simple just in an absolute – that is at rest in the 3D space frame, while consideration in other “3-rd inertial frame” is rather complex [but, again, that was already done more 100 years ago].

However some facts in all frames are the same, in the twin paradox case that are “start of the traveler .motion to a planet”, “arriving to “planet”, turning to Earth” and “start of the traveler .motion to Earth ”, “returning to Earth and meeting with the homebody”..

So, say, if a “homebody frame” . moves somewhere with speed 0.99c, and the traveler start in some moment from this frame to move to a planet that is in opposite direction to the frame velocity with speed, say, 0.999c, he will really move to planet with speed 0.009c, aging so, slower than homebody in ~ 3.15 times, if distance to planet 5 light years, he travels ~ 555 years, ages in 25 years; homebody ages in ~78 years.

To return to Earth for traveler again is necessary to move with speed more homebody’s speed, and again traveler ages slower; calculate more in detail I have no time.

“…There is no experiment like the one I proposed because we cannot travel at relativistic speeds. Sergey. Don't postulate reality. That is what one does in Religion…”

- sorry, in this case there is no necessity to do some experiments, that in moving in 3D space material objects, i.e. particles, bodies,, etc., intrinsic processes are slowed in Lorentz factor is observed numerously in high energy physics. That is another thing, that if, say, a muon is at absolute rest and really decays in 2.2 μs,

- but the measuredin moving in absolute 3D space with 0.99c frame decay time would be – quite non-really, of course, ~15.6 μs. However that would be quite adequate to the reality for physicist, just so the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle acts. No any Religion, there are no religions in every .SS posts and SS&VT papers also, though.

“….I calculated the proper elapsed time for a constant acceleration section of a trip.

Why don't you show us what is the value of that? That is the subject of this discussion….”

Really here is no subjects in physics, that is subject in textbooks.

And to

“…There are a lot of problems with trying to correct Einstein's mistakes. I went back to the original German that Einstein wrote in and found it wasn't even translated properly into English - so that causes a big mess from the get-go.….”

- that in the quote is, of course, inessential, after 1905/1915 innumerous publications about the SR/GR, including textbooks, and on English of Einstein himself, were/are published.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

I don't care for your explanations. I calculated the elapsed time for a single day's worth of acceleration from 0 to 0.9999 c with constant acceleration (the simplest possible problem), as seen by the Earth Twin.

Please do the same and let me know how much the traveling twin would age on that day.

No BS. No Nonsense.

Stephen I. Ternyik

You said: The assumption that spacetime outside a central mass distribution has an asymptotically flat far away region which is globally empty is inconsistent with the general principle of relativity.

The Twin Paradox doesn't require a gravitational field. The spacecraft is self-propelled and does not follow geodesics, so a geodesics model cannot be used here.

If General Relativity cannot explain the simplest possible problem (a constant acceleration for a certain amount of time), then we have a crappy model. GR is already lost when it comes to even a two-body problem (e.g., the binary pulsar problem).

My argument tells you that one should use Minkowski's interpretation of velocity. I explained that even under gravitational fields (acceleration), the only thing that matters is velocity. I did that by showing the virtual velocity that goes into the Schwarzschild metric.

In other words, the only thing that matters for a differential amount of time dilation at a given velocity is the value of that velocity at that time. Accelerated frameworks are just a sequence of inertial frames, nothing more than that. There is no memory effect, and the system is Markovian. :) Relativistic effects can only affect the instantaneous velocity.

Marco Pereira

In a series of talks -I have explained that Minkowski spacetime does not really fit with special relativity and have to modify special relativity so that can fit Minkowski spacetime to it. There are numerous other modifications that are needed to be made to special relativity; so that it is no longer a precisely defined theory. see for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xE2oGzSmb0

You are right to pointing to the inconsistencies of Einstein’s theory of special relativity Marco Pereira The absolute universal speed of light (in vacuum) and the absolute universal ‘speed’ of time are maybe not the same, i.e. time and light are not the same. Markov process are memoryless in the sense that you only need to know the current state in order to determine statistics about its future. The past does not impact statistics about the future.

The following might be also of interest to you:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward-Wu-10/post/Is_velocity_time_dilation_true_or_just_a_mathematical_definition/attachment/60791849220bc50001514ab0/AS%3A1013066258989057%401618545226760/download/Special+Relativity+and+Velocity+Time+Dilation+%E2%80%93+An+Imagination+or+a+Pure+Mathematical+Definition+G1302033843.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIn19

_____________

Ref/

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

Rather complete scientific explanation of what is “twin paradox”, and not only, see in SS post on page 3, May 11, to read SS post on page 4 it is useful as well, so here only one comment:

Marco Pereira, that

“…Sergey Shevchenko I don't care for your explanations. ….”

- isn’t good. Practically everything in SS posts and links in the posts, including explanations of concrete points, is rigorously scientifically correct and substantiated, so it is useful to read that and, if necessary to at least attempt to understand.

And to

“….. I calculated the elapsed time for a single day's worth of acceleration from 0 to 0.9999 c with constant acceleration (the simplest possible problem), as seen by the Earth Twin.

Please do the same and let me know how much the traveling twin would age on that day.

No BS. No Nonsense..…”

- in this case, unlike your calculations of twin ages in earlier posts, you don’t write what the acceleration value you obtained; and so I can only to repeat, that most about you write till now is solved correctly, and is, as that is in this case, in the SR textbooks.

So to understand what is “acceleration” you can, say, to read really good textbook http://www.elegio.it/mc2/LandauLifshitz_TheClassicalTheoryOfFields_text.pdf , Para 7 [what is 4-speed]; since acceleration notion is rather trivial, that is in the illustrative section to this Para “PROBLEM”;

- and, putting your concrete values of speeds, etc., in the general equation for acceleration to check – are or not your calculation correct in this case.

Cheers

I don't see any calculation or value in your answer? What happened?

You said: - in this case, unlike your calculations of twin ages in earlier posts, you don’t write what the acceleration value you obtained; and so I can only to repeat, that most about you write till now is solved correctly, and is, as that is in this case, in the SR textbooks.

Well. Constant Acceleration as seen from the Earthly twin. The velocity goes from zero to 0.99999 c in a day, which is 24*3600 seconds, so the acceleration is 0.99999 c/(24*3600) =299792458 * 0.99999/(24*3600)=3469.78 m/s^2

So, I provided the reference frame used for the acceleration and relative velocity. I asked how the Traveling Twin aged in a day.

I asked because that is irrelevant. I wanted to hear that he was less than a day old.

It is very simple. No BS... no trying to get me to argue with an SR textbook.

I am correcting them. I don't need textbooks that I am correcting to educate me.

By the way, I didn't immediately answer your comment because I don't consider your knowledge up to snuff.

That said, let's continue.

The goal is to build a four-day trip in which the traveling wing accelerates, then decelerates, reverses velocity, travels back, and decelerates to a full stop in four days.

I want to conclude that the traveling Twin would have aged less than four days.

Not that difficult.

By the way, if there is an SR textbook that already has this question answered, please provide a copy of the pages. No BS, please. No excuses...either

Dear Roger Anderton

I showed that General Relativity (Einstein's equations) doesn't explain the Universe. Friedmann's model fails, and it has 7 parameters. It produces a fitting to data that is debunked by simple logic: In a 14 billion years old universe, you cannot have distances larger than 14 billion light-years and still claim that lightspeed is the limiting velocity.

You might say you are naive because L-CDM stretches space with Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Inflation Field and takes energy from a False Vacuum.

I would call you neuronal disadvantaged...;) since I provided a simpler model (two parameters) where the parameters are predicted to be within a small range (where they are found).

The data you see is for my prediction of the SN1a distances from their redshifts. All distances are smaller than the 4D radius (14.03 billion light-years, and the universe is 14.03 billion years old).

I don't require imaginary Dark Matter, Dark Energy, an Inflatable Field, False Vacuum, or a big explosion to create the universe.

In other words, I have bragging rights. To claim that "you claimed that Minkowski spacetime doesn't fit Relativity" is irrelevant.

What did you do with that? Which observation did you explain better?

In other words, claiming this or that has no value if your alternative model is not shown to be better or more predictive.

So, instead of sending me to watch your video on Unzicker's Crackpot Channel, just tell me what supports your model.

Marco Pereira "To claim that "you claimed that Minkowski spacetime doesn't fit Relativity" is irrelevant. What did you do with that?"- its about descriptive as to what is going on: Einstein 1905 theory supposedly has no aether, while Lorentz theory has aether. Minkowski spacetime fits better if the relevant theory has aether like Lorentz's theory does; so presumably, Einstein 1905 theory has unstated aether added to it when Minkowski spacetime added to it. While what you are doing is - math which can be bodged anyway that physicists whims take them.

Roger Anderton

Let's be clear on what you call Ether. Ether is a material (something with mass and density) that carries electromagnetic waves.

Ether was supposed to sense gravity and be dragged by Earth.

That Ether has been disproved by the Michelson-Morlley Experiment.

There is no connection between Ether and Lorentz Transformations. Lorentz Transformation has no information about the state of motion, density etc... of Ether... So, Lorentz's Theory cannot be dependent on Ether.

Even if it does, that is irrelevant since I showed you evidence that General Relativity doesn't work... Why bother discussing Special Relativity?

My presentation about Relativity cannot be undone by theoreticians because my demonstration removes the words "Relativity" and "Covariance" and replaces all physics with laws designed for an absolute reference frame that one can only see in 4D.

In other words, my theory doesn't require the geodesics model; it doesn't require metric... deformation of spacetime... and I couldn't care less for Ether.

From your response, I assume that whatever you are proposing about Ether and Special Relativity has no observational support of any kind. Otherwise, you would have provided it.

Marco Pereira, General relativity was supposedly built from special relativity; so that is the relevance to special relativity - with general relativity as extension of special relativity. Given that "they" accept relativity can be extended like that, there is no reason for them not saying can extend relativity in different directions. So, your claim "General Relativity doesn't work" - doesn't make any impression on relativity because relativity allows itself to be amended when face any problem. If you are pointing out problem with general relativity then response is to just amend it a bit more. The claim that "they" make is - general relativity works in certain circumstances (with breakdown at such things as singularities) - so "they" are open to general relativity being extended/amended to deal with more physical circumstances than it so far deals with.

As for what you say about ether - I disagree with much of it. Lorentz's theory was for instance - an ether theory, when Lorentz introduced Lorentz transformations he was trying to save the existing ether theorising. i.e. before Einstein - the existing paradigm was to interpret such experiments as the Michelson-Morley experiment from ether concept. The explanations by the mainstream (believers in relativity) of why the ether concept was abandoned as a way to interpret such experiments - as far as I am concerned makes no sense. And of course - Einstein 1920 said there was an ether, despite what he had said earlier.

Marco Pereira, this

“…Well. Constant Acceleration as seen from the Earthly twin. The velocity goes from zero to 0.99999 c in a day, which is 24*3600 seconds, so the acceleration is 0.99999 c/(24*3600) =299792458 * 0.99999/(24*3600)=3469.78 m/s^2…”

- is really unphysical passage, since really a force, F=dP/dt, P is momentum, that acts on a body with rest mass, m, in some space direction in “Earth frame”, starting, say, from the body’s zero speed, F=(γm)dV/dt, γ is Lorentz factor, which depends on V. So really there cannot be some motion with constant acceleration, i.e. dV/dt=const, as you write above at speeds near speed of light, c, since for this it is necessary to impact on body by really unreally large force.

So in the SR as “uniformly accelerated” motion is considered only in the case the acceleration is caused by action of force, which is, if is measured in co-moving with body frame, i.e. when V=0, is constant. For V=0.99999 c the measured – and so that acts on, say, the traveler that reached this speed in a day [in the quote above], acceleration [more see L&L textbook linked in the SS post], a, a ~ 106m/s2, i.e. ~105g, g is gravitational acceleration on Earth surface; so the force, F, that acts on the traveler in all day time interval on Earth, F=ma, m is the traveler’s mass. The measured in first minute after start on Erath frame acceleration is ~ 106m/s2, however measured after 86400-s is ~ 270 m/s2.

Cheers

Stam Nicolis

You said: There's no ``twin paradox''. One of the twins follows a geodesic in spacetime; the other can't, because the solution of the geodesic equation is unique, so it must follow another curve between the same spacetime points.

The geodesic between two spacetime points maximizes the proper time, so the proper time along any other curve is less than hat along the geodesic.

Furthermore, proper time is invariant under global Lorentz transformations, that's why the geodesic isn't equivalent to any other curve and no two curves are equivalent, since hey can't be mapped one to another by a global Lorentz transformation.

The obvious objection to your answer is that a spacecraft does not follow geodesics.

This is similar to a Hammer, who thinks that everything in the universe is nails...:)

I wonder what the people who recommended this answer think. Do you think a spacecraft follows geodesics?

I am adding this correction to Dr. Stam Nicolis because I missed it in the first passage and because Dr. Nicolis is brilliant and could provide an argument that at least makes some sense.

Unfortunately, blocking idiots doesn't work. By the way, I didn't block everyone. I only blocked you, Cosmin...:)

As you can see, somehow, I still see your idiotic answers...:) "Energy doesn't exist"...:)

I would laugh at it if it weren't so sad...:)

Rather complete scientific explanation of what is “twin paradox” , and not only, see in SS post on page 3, May 11, to read SS post on pages 4 and 5 it is useful as well.

So here only one point additionally - the absolute motion and the absolute velocity of Sun system in the absolute 3D space of Matter’s utmost universal fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), can be observed and measured; more see proposed yet in 2013 -2016 experiments in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

Stam Nicolis

Here is more food for your thoughts

https://youtu.be/7jVn47VQxfc

A few comments:

The way forward in physics is to explain more with a theory simpler than the combination of GR and QM. Certainly, not add dimensions.

The Michaelson-Morley Experiment and the Miller experiment rejected the "luminiferous" ether But not many other ether-type theories.

To be an advance in physics REQUIRES the entanglement and van Flandern's (and others) measurement of the speed of gravity (a force) observations. That is, a speed of a force much greater than light.

What is the experiment that demonstrates twin aging depending on velocity (aging because of acceleration - yes)? None that I know?

I defer to Roger Anderton, but time dilation was not a part of Einstein's original SR model which was length contraction. Extending SR beyond length contraction is very suspect. Even the interpretation that the velocity of a system actually changes parameters is a modern falsity. The original term "stationary system" should read in English as "measurement system". Thus, a measurement system may measure shorter lengths in a relative moving system but this doesn't suggest an actual change in length. Thus, the concept of a universal system is based on a flawed interpretation of SR.