There aren't any paradoxes regarding relativity.

All these ``paradoxes'' simply illustrate the confusion that results from introducing additional assumptions, beyond global Lorentz invariance, which is what special relativity is about and on focusing on quantities that aren't invariant under Lorentz transformations. Quantities that aren't invariant under Lorentz transformations only serve to construct combinations that are. The non-trivial content of special relativity is that it is possible to do so.

There isn't any ``twins paradox'', for the trivial reason that, if one twin follows a geodesic in spacetime, the other twin can't, since geodesics are uniquely specified by the boundary conditions. (The confusion is in mixing up space and spacetime.)The proper time of each twin is a Lorentz invariant quantity and the two twins are distinguished by the fact that their proper times differ.

The initial decision on which curve in spacetime to take is what makes the twins asymmetrical.

The Modification of Special Relativity

Abstract

In this paper, the phenomenon of light velocity invariance is analyzed by using a new etheric view, and the physical mechanism of light velocity invariance is given, the principle of constancy of light velocity and the principle of special relativity are modified, and the Lorentz transformation is deduced by using these two modified principles. The relationship between mass and speed, the relationship between time and speed, and the relationship between length and speed are reanalyzed, and physical explanations different from the Special Relativity are given.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=96732

I see- no one did read not a single of new discovered paradoxes. Every one is trained to refuse any new ideas by using old known arguments, which are contradicting other old known arguments.

For Stam Nicolis : You told that word, "asymetric". But according to Einsteins "Relativity Principle" there are only "equal righted" inertial systems, as he did teach about length contraction.( togheter with Lorentz and Poincare) But did not succed to do so in time dilation, which is used in prefering way asymetrically to solve twins paradox. And You really never used or learned the comon used thumb rule "the moving clocks are slower"? Then look german TV physician Dr.J.Gassner on youtibe channel explaining SRT time dilation and twins paradox solution. Which one of two has to be choosen to be "moved"` prefered to the other statinary? If both are not to be prefered? This old discussion seems not to disturb physicians by igniruing and using contradicting thumb rukes. Please dontstart again the teach of accelerated IF's. You know how it can be over welmed using known Gedankenexperiment. I know them all better then You.

The situation is now changed radical, as I descovered 6 new unkown by anyone relativistic paradoxes and solved them incliúding twins paradox using just one common new relativistic principle, which also unites dynamic and static Relativity besides of SRT and also GRT using Gravitons, which are able to be Doppler shifted, which leads to increasing local Gravitation (field by gravitons) -> so the common relativistic reason is Gravitation only and the movement is just acting on that gravitation of gravitons. Which model concept connects for the first time in history of physics the Standard Particle Model with both Relativity issues, dynamic and static.

So You want to keep not reading new ideas? Its Your decision. And so did all the redactors and referees too. They are "defender of Einstein and SRT" in a lobying castle, using none consistent argument munition invented since 116 years. But the nature is the same source of all our ideas and no autority will resist against more and deeper descovered truth of nature for ever.

There aren’t just six, but any number of ``paradoxes" that can be produced by looking at quantities that aren’t invariant under Lorentz transformations. That’s why claims that are based on such quantities aren’t interesting, since they’re obviously meaningless.

Lengths aren’t invariant under Lorentz transformations, nor are times. That’s why focusing on how each individually transforms under Lorentz transformatiins doesn’t make sense. What is interesting is that there is a combination of length and time that is invariant under Lorentz transformations-and whose sign has a particular meaning.

If spacetime isn’t flat, then Lorentz transformations aren’t globally defined and the only local invariant quantities are constants, any other quantity depends on the frame. There exist non-local quantities that are invariant under the general coordinate transformations.

All this is known and is the topic of all courses in general relativity.

Stam Nicolis combinations and invariants is a good wording. So the speed of light is of cource a length, which is not invariant and time not invariant combined. Ok.

So speed of light c = Length unit/Time unit OR also c = measured distance/ measured time distance -> the relativistic change to lenght and time therefore must be done by same factor, the Lorentz factor Gamma. If we use SRT, then the Gamma is squared in theresult for c due to dilated time and contacted length, and we lose the constancy of speed of light.

Only solution is, to shorten both or to elongate both time and length by the Lorentz Gamma eliminating them to 1. and so c stays c. Thats how SRT violates its own postulate of constant speed of light and how my hypothesies only is saving it to be true. SRT is based on a logical failure treatment of length contraction.

In SRT all lengths, both measured distances and length units are contracted by Gamma, which leads to eliminating whole length contarction. Imagine You contarcted distance, then also the length units, to get how many units are fitting in that contracted too distance You have to devide- So You get prevous distance number back. This is explained in "Moritz-Paradox" of mine. Another view is descovering again same as above the violation of c constancy.

In same time SRT does treaten the time dilation differing between dilated elongated time units and contracted measured time (distances). This is done but hidden, not open willingly arguing.

I m using that same consequently for length dilation and contraction the distance too. Like a time unit is dilated, ie. elomgated , I did elongate the length units, and then and onyl so, we get a contracted distance mesured by a longer length units as in time it was done so right in SRT.

Lorentz calculus stays same, just interpretation does correct that descovered failure, which cannot be repaired another way. Consequence is the 2nd postulate is now really true repaired and space shuttles are not contracted but elongated, dilated,as they are also macroscopic length units. So both postulates are kept, but not so the "Relativity Principle". Now we have - as it is already but incinsequently for tiime dilation only - a new Gravitational Level Realtivity. Which repairs that failure inlength contraction and allparadoxes.

You didn't read, but just assumed what I do. By some none sciencetifical arguments like "it can not be", "again one more". "Einstein has right". Here is new quaity, and no onereads mre then titleand isasuming traditional thinking.

There are 15 articles detailed description.

I have recently written some articles disclosing some new paradoxes/ambiguities in both SRT & GRT. The articles are open access and you can easily reach them via my profile. I also provide you with the links here:

https://www.gup.ugal.ro/ugaljournals/index.php/math/article/view/4074

https://bpasjournals.com/physics/chapter-details.php?chap_id=2668&issue_type=196&volume=135&journal=7

https://bpasjournals.com/physics/chapter-details.php?chap_id=2684&issue_type=196&volume=135&journal=7

The Lorentz transformations express the fact that the speed of light is invariant. In fact the same holds for the speed parameter of the wave equation, in general: The equation is invariant under linear transformations that mix space and time in a particular way that leaves the speed invariant. For the speed parameter equal to the speed of light one recovers the case relevant for electrodynamics.

This is all standard material in any course on electrodynamics these days. There's no reason now to repeat the errors that appeared in the history of the subject. History of physics≠physics.

Stam Nicolis "There's no reason now to repeat the errors"

Thanks, You are openly refusing to read and assuming Your own version of what I m writing and decided it to be a repeat of "errors". This is why You are outside of any discussion about my new and unkown to You and world ideas. It is not possible to be competent not have studied the content.

So You are an example of an ignorant main stream physicist, not interested in new knowledge.

Hello, Mohammad Javanshiry

Are thouse paradoxes likely as mine 6 paradoxes? You are even to laizy to write titles of Your own articles. 5 anonym links I have to follow and here people are ignoring and not reading even shorter descriptions.

Behnam Farid

Dear frend of relativity interpretations.

You gave up Your own thinking by constating the "no paradox" doctrine.

This is done by ignoring the fact, that SRT does not explain why one inertial frame is prefered over the another and even it contradicts in that against own "Relativity Princiiple" which forbids any differences between inertial frames definingthem all "equal righted".

Even, the ignorants are doing so, arguing with acceleration changing IFs that if so, then it is still not within SRT but outside of it, contardicting the "relativity principle".

No one of now discovered new 6 paradoxes can any one solve in SRT nor GRT. At the moment we see ignoration and a "solution" in refusing to read.

Jianan Wang

Dear frend of relativity interpretations.

In Your work You use the wording "ether", which was banished by established physics completely. No one will read more then to that wording.

In my theories I do not use and didnt need it so far. But of cource the space is not empty as quantum mechanics is telling also that. Einstein told in Leiden, Netherlands in 1920 a small speach about ether for the ears of Lorentz. "wihtout ether there is nothink" and "the curved space time is the ether of General Relativity Theory". So the question arise, why they killed that word ether? This is done for Einstein, as this is the only difference of his interprtation of the previous theory made by Poincare and Lorentz. This theoiry is Lorentz-Poincare-Einstein theory if we want to be correct. You can abstractly discuss but when using the word ether, it is undersood as an attack on the authorship of Einstein to the SRT and that is forbiden by established organisation which is ruling in physics science. Even if Einstein did add some formulas, which Lorentz just didnt wroite out, it is a wonder why the autoship is given to one last modifier alone.

Now new descoveries are showing a logical failure in SRT, which was primary done by Lorentz and Poincare and was taken whithout any change by Einstein.

Behnam Farid

This is not a forum, where childreen of scools are asking explains of how to solve home work or learn somethink established. So only authors of origin work are here and all discussions are not questions and are a part of the work of thouse authors. And read exactly "starting discussion" and I did start it with my own originrelated information and invited to discuss firstly that, and if available to add another information.

Before You did get my responce to Your droping links even without titles You dindt claim what now You are claiming. So You ignored my started discussion and used it for just anouncing Your own work, but even very laizy way without titles. 3 not 5 and one not working.

And I'm not interested in discussion with such one person.

I'm never attacking another meaning, as I have own origin ideas, descoveries and hypothesies. I hope You will keep not reading myartcles.

Viktor Schatz: I read your article entitled "A Shocking Discovery ...". Eq. (5) in the article does not make any sense to me, and thus your final result [Eq. (7)] is no longer valid. It is possible that relativity is a paradoxical theory, but finding a real paradox is not that easy that you may think!

The said article of yours lacks both rigorous math and philosophy and I tend to discard it. If you really want to reveal any paradox in this theory, you should first have a comprehensive take on it.

Besides, my articles have their own "titles" and "abstracts" available in my profile, and I do not feel obliged to discuss them in detail in every single comment/reply here and there. I am afraid that none of my paradoxes resembles yours.

Mohammad Javanshiry it is because Your paraodox is none. My arguing is absolute right and Your arguing above against it is nonsence. You are just disapointed by my remark about missing titles. Yes. that means like for a dog droping to ground. If Your paradox would be right I ofcource would citate it.

Ciao, Marco. Good luck.

Relativity itself is a paradoxon

Paul Pistea

after my discoveries and solution not any more

My theory (based on distributions) shows that RT is contradictorily

One can solve twin paradox(es) by cloning: 2 clones are different ages:))

Nothing but irony

we can see, that no one is interested in new discivered relativistic paradoxes. Theyare not expaniable whithin SRT and GRT and so what, nobody cares.

Physic did lost both Relativity Theories, but ignoring helps it.

Dear Viktor Schatz

I found a strange phenomenon. On the one hand, everyone believes that the strong gravitational force of a black hole can prevent light from escaping, and the speed of light is reduced to zero. On the other hand, everyone does not recognize the influence of light from the earth’s gravity.

The speed of light is superimposed on the speed of the earth. Because light is affected by the gravitational field of the earth, the speed of light is the same no matter which direction you measure. Just like you measure the speed of sound in an airplane, which direction is constant.

Time will expand. This is the most irresponsible assumption in order to make the "constant speed of light" possible.

SR is a theory based on false assumptions. It is more like a mathematical game that drives smart scholars who admire Einstein into madness.

Preprint Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Inte...

Sagnac Effect，it is a very good example to illustrate: the speed of light is superimposed on the speed of the reference object.

Tony Yuan this is simpy not true.

You wrote "On the other hand, everyone does not recognize the influence of light from the earth’s gravity".

You should study more literature, as gravitational effect is taken into account in GPS and space traveling calculations. It is contra to dynamic speed effect. Far of planet gravitational effect makes time faster and dynamic effect is working on speed makes it slower. Rebka experiment.

As I adviced You already, before publishing You and evryone has to prove very well Your results and stopp writing Your "dreams of last night". You destroy the image of this media which then is influencing image of all authors. This recource is not a forum for scolars, asking standard knowledge, while to laizy to study literature else where.

I'm not member of "Your brain storming" too and no one will be, as all Your writing is meaningless and absurd. Your childreen could be authors of this bullshit.

Please don't write to me ever.

Thanks for Your understanding

Viktor Schatz

You may have forgotten what is the "twin paradox". The speed is relative. How do you know you move faster than me? Only two objects refer to each other. You can't know who is fast and who is slow at all. What's more, whose time is faster or slower?

Give up this theory. SR is only one page of Einstein's paper, which can also be said to be his brainstorming. Einstein was also opposed to SR in his later years. You can go and see his history.

A physicist needs to have his own thinking, not just follow, i wish you can have yourself ideas.

There are too many factors that can slow the clock on GPS, and the gravitational factor must be one of the reasons, but this is only the slower clock, not the time dilation on GPS, GPS does not have this "brain" yet, let it know to compare the time with the clock on the earth. Isn’t it ridiculous to you that GPS is faster than the earth? Who do you think is faster, you or Bolt? How to know who is fast and who is slow without a third reference.

This is logic, not physics. If logic doesn't make sense, then where is physics? .

I have only written 3 physics papers in total, all of which were completed within two years. I like discussions and all kinds of questions. We can always find a lot of ideas from it.

Article Double-Slit Interference Experiment Analysis

Preprint Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves

Preprint Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Inte...

If you think it is wrong, you can express your opinion on my site. I will be happy to see.

Case RT time is an illusion, divide it by square root (1-v^2/c^2) to become real

Hi Victor, if you replace SRT by RST (Resting Source Theory) the "Twins Paradox")

can easily be solved. On www.problemanimations.com the Pioneer Anomaly Problem is perfectly solved and an animation helps to better understand the theory. Anybody interested to assist in adding an animation to show how the Twins Paradox is solved. Greetings, Knut