Hello, I aim to clarify the matter.

The scenario you've described is a classic example of the twin paradox, which is often used to illustrate the effects of time dilation under Special Relativity (SR). However, the conclusion that Special Relativity is "nonsense" based on this thought experiment is a misunderstanding of the theory and its implications.

First, it's important to clarify that the principle of relativity, as stated by Einstein, indeed asserts that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. An inertial frame is one that is either at rest or moving at a constant velocity; it is not accelerating.

The key to resolving the apparent contradiction you've mentioned lies in understanding that the scenario involves non-inertial (accelerating) frames of reference as well. The clock that is flown around the Earth is not in an inertial frame of reference for the entire journey because it is changing direction (and possibly speed), which involves acceleration. This acceleration is critical because Special Relativity does not claim that time dilation effects are identical in accelerating frames as they are in inertial frames.

When the traveling clock returns, it indeed shows a different time from the one that stayed on the ground, which is a direct consequence of time dilation. This outcome is consistent with the predictions of Special Relativity and has been experimentally verified through various experiments, including those involving atomic clocks on airplanes (Hafele-Keating experiment).

The apparent contradiction arises from a misunderstanding of the application of Special Relativity's principles. SR does not argue that outcomes should be identical in scenarios involving acceleration (non-inertial frames). Rather, it describes how time and space are relative in inertial frames. The General Theory of Relativity, which extends upon SR to include gravity and acceleration, provides the framework to fully explain the results of such experiments, showing that there is no contradiction within the theory.

The experiment you describe demonstrates time dilation, a real and well-documented effect predicted by Special Relativity, rather than disproving the theory. This effect reconciles with the principle of relativity when considering the proper distinction between inertial and non-inertial frames and understanding the broader context of Einstein's theories, including General Relativity for accelerating frames.

Best,

Alessandro Rizzo

Thank you Alessandro for your attempt to explain what I wrote about. But it does not help!

What you write I have read and studied from several books. It's nothing new to me. In a way, you reinforce my belief that SR is nonsense.

It goes without saying that the Hafele-Keating experiment cannot be considered a proof that SR is correct (I'm only talking about SR). In that experiment there are no inertial reference frames. End of discussion!

Then we do a thought experiment like Einstein used in his book from 1916. We have two inertial reference systems S and S'. S' is at a certain distance from the stationary S, accelerates to speed v, when it passes S, their clocks are synchronized (t = t' = 0). S' moves during the time t' and before it starts to brake, you read t'. Because t' has started from zero and grown to t' during the time that S' was moving as an inertial reference system, it must have the same value as t, t' = t. At the same time, SR says that t = γt' (due to of time dilation).

This is a contradiction within SR. Therefore they are nonsense.

That is because you are confused with SR, principle of relativity, and Lorentz transforms. SR is correct and proved multiple time. Biggest proof is how electromagnetism works, so every time you see a magnetic effect of electric current you should remember SR is correct.

Akash Verma

SR has nothing to do with electrical or magnetic effects. Read what are the basics of SR.

Jan Slowak it does, and it does a lot..

Moreover, when you say that all the laws apply equally to things in inertial frame of reference, it does not mean that they follow Galleon transforms.

Basics of SR come from Lorentz transforms, which were given to explain parts and anomalies of electromagnetism, which could not explained by classical physics.

Special relativity is a great theory with maybe a few flaws, but to say that you or me understand SR enough to call it crap is complete folly.

Akash . . .

Akash Verma

1) "when you say that all the laws apply equally to things in inertial frame of reference"

It is not me who says it, it is SR itself.

2) "it does not mean that they follow Galleon transforms"

I haven't written about Galileo's transformations.

3) "Special relativity is a great theory with maybe a few flaws"

If a theory has a single deficiency/fault then it is incorrect in its entirety.

4) "but to say that you or me understand SR enough to call it crap is complete folly"

These are your words, you have to stand for them. Men don't say about how much others understand or can. I'm just talking about SR in this post.

It is not me who says it, it is SR itself.

--Yes, you are correct, but it does not matter. It is all the same.

I haven't written about Galileo's transformations.

--Well, formula that you using to say that t=t' should be the case, is part of Galilean Transform, if you did not know that already. So, even though you did not mention them particularly you are talking about the same.

--Also the formula you used to denote the time dilation is part of Lorenz transforms, which were given by Lorenz in 1904, a year before Einstein published SR paper. So, technically, you are proving Lorenz transforms wrong not actually SR.

If a theory has a single deficiency/fault then it is incorrect in its entirety.

--When I say that there might be a few flaws, I mean there could be, that does not mean there are any I know of or any that you have talked about right here. There can be flaws, but as far as I have studied, I have found none. There are sometimes problems with applying GR at quantum level, but SR no, not something that we have found yet. Also I should remind you if you are judging scientific theories on that standard, you might as well say most science is a wastage of time and efforts. And quantum mechanics and chemistry are one another level, there anomalies shouldn't even be mentioned. So, when there are flaws found, we try to correct them, explain them in a different way, we say it is incomplete, but never nonsense.

These are your words, you have to stand for them. Men don't say about how much others understand or can. I'm just talking about SR in this post.

-- I do agree with you again and I apologize for being judgmental.

Akash

Akash Verma

5) "Yes, you are correct, but it does not matter. It is all the same"

It's not the same thing. SR contradicts itself. That is the point.

6) "formula that you using to say that t=t'"

This is a logical conclusion based on what the principle of relativity says:

”The laws of physics are identical in all inertial frames, or, equivalently, the outcome of any physical experiment is the same when performed with identical initial conditions relative to any inertial frame.”

7) "technically, you are proving Lorenz transforms wrong not actually SR"

Those are your words. But Lorentz transformations are the basis for SR, if they are wrong then SR is also wrong.

8) "that does not mean there are any I know"

If someone reads a theory and doesn't think for themselves but just follows what is written in the books/courses, they come to the same conclusion as the theory. Then you cannot detect flaws or errors.

9) "I do agree with you again and I apologize for being judgmental."

I want nothing more than a discussion with my posts. But then I would like you to be objective and respectful.

If you read carefully what I wrote, I hope you will understand better what I want to say.

10) "There are sometimes problems with applying GR at quantum level", "And quantum mechanics and chemistry" ...

In comments you make, people should NOT deviate from the main topic, from the main question. Thanks.