Preston Guynn

after 116 years now we have a solution of problems so evry one now can undertsand relativity really how it works in nature.

Because both twins don’t and can’t follow spacetime geodesics. If one does, the other can’t. So their proper times-that are Lorentz invariant quantities-differ.

dear friend, please don't forget the 'reality' in physics means what we measure, what we observe; i 'see' the twin paradox, accompagned by the assertion 'in fact one twin is younger' as a joke, in order to increase the beautifulness of srt; now, time dilation and lenght contraction are consequences verified since many tens of years ago, with a precision increasing from decadeto decade , as to say like this; the reality of srt, of course, tells us each twin observe the other being younger; as concerning lenght cntarction, the problem under debate ten years ago was if the lc ois dynamical, or pure kinemativcal; after my oppinion, in the frame of srt is pure kinematical, whereas, in the frame of gr, it could be dynamical, that's all i can tell you, i don't know the other paradoxes, and i'm after two unsleeped days and nights; yours, mircea@

Mircea Ciobanu it is not a joke, it is a slower flowing time. Verified was only time dilation, There is no experiment for measuring length contarction. You didnt read. I showed how length contraction was eliminated in SRT by not differing between units and measured values. In time dilation it was made right and stays so. In length the correction is unavoidable and is following same measurement process as in time dilation. Lenght unit must be also dilated, elongated, and only then the distance willbe measured shorter. So consequence is, space shuttles must be stretsched, as length units too. Even more, the mass must be teated also insame manner.

Many tryed but I really did found the logical failure.

The twin paradox is not explained by stating that one twin undergoes acceleration while the other twin does not.

First, it is necessary to recognize that there is no direct empirical evidence at all to support the claims of the Theory of Relativity. The theory has two pillars only upon which it rests. One is time-dilation, the other is space contraction. While there is direct empirical evidence that length contraction does occur, there is no direct empirical evidence at all to support the claim that time dilates. The direct empirical evidence for length contraction is unrecognized, but, is revealed by the need for the 3/2 fraction in the energy equation for an ideal gas.

With regard to both space and time, neither has ever been experimented upon. There are no isolated controlled specimens of either one in any laboratory anywhere.

No one has ever written a physics equation that included the direct representation of either time or space. Both have always been substituted for by object-related measurements.

There is no basis at all for physicists to tell us anything about space suffering effects caused by objects, or, about space causing effects upon objects. There is no basis at all for physicists to tell us anything about time suffering effects caused by objects, or, about time causing effects upon objects.

What the Theory of Relativity does is confuse the variation of the speed of light with the variation of the speed of time. There is no direct empirical evidence at all to support the idea that the rate at which time passes varies.

Accepting the imagined variation of the speed of time; the twin paradox is based upon the belief that time varies differently for the twins. The introduction of acceleration for the purpose of explaining the twin paradox fails because acceleration consists of changes in velocity. The time dilation formula predicts that the speed of time varies with relative velocity.

One can separate the variation of relative velocity into as small differences as one wants. Adding up the effects of each new relative velocity gives a solution that comes as close as one wants to sum time dilation effects between the twins. The practical result of almost calculating the true sum is that the very nearly completed sum consists of equal changes in time for each twin.

Dear James A Putnam, I understand that Your answer relates on the question, but under the question I introduced the new solution and this you seem not have read.

Dear Viktor Schatz, You are correct. I apologize for not being more attentive to the purpose of your discussion. I thought a question was being asked. Please excuse my interruption. I will read what you present in your answer. Thank you for your message.

dear friend, you can not say that the twin paradox would eliminate the srt; please think it is only a 'subjective' construction of human mind, it doesn't appear as a riguoros demonstrated conclusion of srt, as does the time dilation; i sincerely recommand you to do not so much 'talk' about this aiverting assertion; yours, mirceasd

James A Putnam I did read again Your reply. It is if I understand right, that Your solution was to solve twin paradox, to assume, that the time is not dilating but the speed must change, right?

And You believe, that "there is direct empirical evidence that length contraction does occur, there is no direct empirical evidence at all to support the claim that time dilates". I thought it was opposite, time dilation was measured in airplanes, and length contraction does have no aproval by experiment till now. Sorry for my grammatics.

And third, "space contraction" - I think SRT does not mean that space would be contracted, as they claim a "kinematic effect, none physical". The distance is contracted. The space cannot be because then we would have a paradox of infinite number of realities, by infinite number of inertial frames one per each elementary particle which move all other to another location. The locations in space are the same - at last according to my theory and I think also in SRT it is so. If You are interested in relativistics then You will find a new world reading all my 20 articles.

Mircea Ciobanu hello, did You read that "talk"? I have new six paradoxes discovered and solved that old one of the twins. Also discovered a logical failure of wrong use of contraction both length units and measuered distances which eleminates the contaction of distances at all and leads to violation of constancy of speed of light. So my talk has already some up to 18 articles with a new Realtivity Theory. So I m teaching how relativity really does work and do claim to be the first who understand it. If one would read more then titles and abstracts maybe would find his wonder.

Viktor Schatz

My answers result from my own original work. My opinion is that physics is seriously flawed. The damage is due primarily to theoretical physicists. My point about there being no support at all for claiming that the property of time dilates. There has never been any experimentation on the property of time. No one has ever written an equation in which time was directly represented. It has always been substituted for by object activity. All physics properties are represented in calculable physics equations solely by their units. If one wants to know what it is that Physicists are learning about, one just needs to look at the units that they use. The unit of the second is a count of the cyclic activity of an object. The letter 't' has never represented time. Its substitute, duration, is an object-related measurement.

Length contraction occurs to objects. My reason for saying that there is direct empirical evidence for length contraction results from my original work. Boltzmann's solution for why there is the 3/2 fraction in the ideal gas molecule energy equation was faulty. He included walls in a solution that should be solved only with ideal gas molecules. I solved the same problem in a way that only included the ideal gas molecules. It is the variation of the speed of light that causes the gas molecules to shrink in size by 1/3 of its assumed size from the macroscopic point of view.

Special Relativity is what is used to solve General Relativity problems. Special Relativity is applied at one point after another with the points being as close as possible. The standard used for determining the amount of shrinkage is a freely falling object that begins to fall from a distance so very far away that it could theoretically reach the speed of light before being stopped by colliding with an object such as the Earth. The distance away from the object when the speed of the object would theoretically reach the speed of light is where the event horizon is said to exist. General Relativity credits length contraction with being due to the contraction of space. There is why the word space appears in Einstein's space-time. Special Relativity is said to not include gravity; however, my finding is that it is equivalent to solving a problem where the observers exist in a homogenous gravitational field. When Special Relativity is used to establish the physical form of General Relativity, it is being applied point by point as if the gravitational field was homogeneous, i.e., a constant unvarying field. The constant field is treated as existing only around each separate point and only for the distance shared between each point.

James A Putnam I agree about the role of theoretical main stream. It is happened about 120 years ago, as they decided to only tofollow mathematical way of solutions and to drop any vividly modeling. They are staring at the 5 none solved and none solvable equations rather then allow new ideas. I call it mathematistic instead of mathematical. They believe that inside of this equations is the complete truth of the nuture and they only need to stay trying to solve.

But now I really disocvered and reasonable explained how a logical failure happend in SRT and developed solution, which changes whole theory. This is new and unavoidable fundamental change and every one who is interested in physics should learn it. There is now way then this possible because found in nature.

People do read the title and went up. I have even openly words of physicians like, "I don't nedd to read, even didn't read half of your abstract". Because it is trained to protect agains "Einstein's enemies". Ofcource. there were many wromg ideas during 115 years too, but now is the first time.

In my theory both postulates are kept, while the "relativity principle" not, it went for gravitational level relativity. And all relativity attributes, mass, length and time are now equally asymmetrical values as only time was in SRT. And a new 4th attribute added, the Planck constant is relativistically growing by movement and static gravitation. Reason why all invariant costants stay so is, that units of all 4 attributes are relativisticcaly changed, so the mesurement deliver same nummerical constants in each inertial frame.

It is not possible, to explain a new theory just in the title or a half of abstract. Therefore I have 18 articles and will write more. Main stream is censoring new ideas like a religious organisation.

In Your ideas I still didn't catch how You think that length contraction is proved experimentally and time dilation not. I see that Your field is same relativity but on another way.

Viktor Schatz

Length contraction of space cannot be proven. Space cannot be measured. Length contraction of objects can be proven because objects are measurable. Time dilation is impossible to prove because time is not available for physicists to measure. There are no units of measurement that pertain to either space or time. For both time dilation and space contraction, there are no physics equations that predict either one occurring. I can say this because no one has ever written a physics equation that included the direct representation of either space or time. Their complete lack of appearance in physics equations leaves physicists with no basis at all to tell us anything about effects upon either space or time and, about effects caused by either space or time. Relativity theory survives on successful predictions about what is observed to happen to objects. An object is something that has a velocity that can be caused to change.

The speed of light is a variable. The claim that it is a constant in free space does not tell us that it is not a variable when not in free space. The speed of light slows as it approaches an object with mass such as the Earth. That slowing effect shortens photons in the direction of their movement. This shortening increases the energy of the photons. It s said by physicists that gravity increases the energy of photons as they approach the Earth. My finding is that photon energy increases because the slowing of the speed of light shortens them. Instead of claiming that gravity causes the energy of photons to increase, I suggest that gravity is caused by the increase in photon energy as photons approach the Earth. There is no fundamental force of gravity. There is a variable speed of light that is directly proportional to the distance from the Earth.

This leaves the explanation that mass causes gravity to be in doubt. The problem with the claim that mass causes gravity begins with the lack of a formal physics definition for the property of mass. The problem goes away completely when mass is formally defined in the same historical manner that all defined properties receive their definition. It is their formal correct definitions that tell us what each property is. In the case of mass, its formal physics definition tells me that mass is not a fundamental property. Instead, it is an inverse representation of some other very fundamental property. The equation f=ma should be written as f=a1/a2. The a1 stands for the acceleration of the object t from that equation that is said to have mass. The a2 stands for the acceleration of that property that is inversely represented by mass. That property is light. Mass is the inverse representation of the acceleration of light.

Here is a point of clarification. What I have written above can easily seem to be to far astray from mainstream physics. The fact is that it is far astray from mainstream physics. Here is the reason why. Mainstream physics embraces fundamental disunity. The equation f=ma, when first introduced, was an equation that had fundamental unity present in it. When it was decided to make mass the third indefinable property of physics mechanics, fundamental unity was immediately lost and remains lost. The act of finally defining mass in the same historical manner that all other defined properties received their definitions, immediately returned fundamental unity to f=ma. Each undefined definable property causes the immediate loss of fundamental unity in its own equation in which it is introduced to us. This means that the fundamental unity that is regained in the equation f=ma by formally defining mass, is then lost immediately when both temperature and electric charge are introduced into physics equations. Both of these properties also needed to receive their formal definition and have not received them from mainstream physics. I defined them using that same historical method. This movement away from including undefined properties and using only defined properties results in a new physics in which fundamental unity is always present in its equations. The answers I give are learned from physics when the equations of physics contain variables that have all received their formal definitions with the exceptions of length and duration, i.e., the equation substitutes for space and time. Space and time are permanently indefinable properties. The historical method of defining a physics property cannot be applied to either space or time or to length and duration. This occurs because there are no properties introduced before them. They are the properties of direct empirical evidence. In other words, there are no properties in terms of which space or time can be formally defined. This is the natural state of fundamental physics. Now for the point of writing all of this explanation, it is that the answers I give are answers that result from fundamentally unifying physics. In other words, this is what fundamental unity looks like. Mainstream physics contains no fundamental unity in its equations.

Finally, my direct empirical evidence for the existence of object length contraction is the finding that the speed of light slows by 1/3 for the hydrogen atom. The slowing of the speed of light by its nucleus shrinks the hydrogen atom and similarly for all atoms. As a sort of confirmation, I find that the remaining size, which is smaller by 1/3 is 2/3 of its original size when all parts are separated. The 3/2 fraction in the energy equation for the ideal gas atom is the inverse representation of the 2/3 fraction of a molecule whose size is shrunk. The derivation of the energy equation of an ideal gas molecule is based upon there being no shrinkage of the size of the ideal gas molecule. Rather it is based upon molecules of the ideal gas bouncing off of rigid walls.Rigid walls are not ideal gas molecules. Opposite rigid walls cancel out their individual effects. .

we should not forget the answer in SRT: using Minkowski diagrams and theory was claimed, that both observers are seing the other to be with slower time then oneself as a statiobary one. At the same time the solution of twins paradox in SRT tells that the moved of twins stays younger. This is a contradiction and must lead to an fantastic concept of many realities in "parallel spaces", which I personnaly refuse completelly as an absurdity. So Minkowski is contradicting to SRT and did not recognise it?

Minkowski died soon whithin 3 mounths after his report in september1908 by appendix.

Dear Mircea Ciobanu

I read your message to a dear friend each time I pass by it. Who is Dear friend? A post of mine was a little before your message. Were you addressing me by any chance?

Best wishes to you,

James A Putnam

https://youtu.be/jsUFpz1iU9Q