Einstein Was Wrong

First, I will apologize to my opponent for my mental shortcomings. Second, I will point out that I never agreed that appealing to General Relativity would be a forfeit. That's a rule my opponent made up out of nowhere, and that I never agreed to, which is why I ignored it.Thirdly, I'd like to challenge Con's repeated assertion that the slowing of time caused by motion is only an illusion experienced by external observers. Con asked me to literally quote Einstein. Now I can't be bothered to search Einstein's actual works for every instance where he refers to time dilation, nor would I know where to begin looking for such an archive. But I think we can all agree that NASA is a credible authority for how Special Relativity is supposed to work. Let's settle this once and for all, Con: motion slows time. It does not merely create the illusion of slowed time to external observers. It slows time for the object moving, because according to NASA:(3) Special Relativity also says that a surprising thing happens when you move through space-time[...] Time goes slower for you than for the people you left behind. You won't notice this effect until you return to those stationary people. Say you were 15 years old when you left Earth in a spacecraft traveling at about 99.5% of the speed of light (which is much faster than we can achieve now), and celebrated only five birthdays during your space voyage. When you get home at the age of 20, you would find that all your classmates were 65 years old, retired, and enjoying their grandchildren! Now, Con will probably want to repeat his assertion from the last round that when the twins meet up, they will appear the same age to each other. Clearly, this is not what is predicted by Special Relativity. If Con wants to dispute this point, I suggest he take it up with NASA, not me. Moving on. Con said that my sources provide their own resolutions to the paradox. He then acts as if I'm not aware of this. However, none of their resolutions work, which is why I ignored them. Con can't just quote my sources making the assertion that the paradox is solved. Con also complains that I didn't address his arguments. Actually, I did, but indirectly. Since his arguments rely on the incorrect assumption that moving objects only appear to age from the perspective of external observers, and I pointed out this assumption is false (and even cited NASA backing me up), all his arguments fail. Just like that. Make no mistake. Time passes slower for moving objects, according to Special Relativity.(3) If this were not the case, then NASA could not say that the twins were of different ages (and portray earth-twin with a bigger beard) whenever they met up again. I can't wait for Con to say NASA is wrong in it's interpretation of Special Relativity. Con sums up his proposed resolutions of the paradox as follows: 1. Either or both twins are mistaken. 2. Information can't travel faster than light. Number 1 is proven wrong because, as I just explained, their perception of slowed time is not a mistake. Time is actually slowed for the moving twin; it's not an illusion that only the other twin sees. Number 2 is just stupid, honestly. What is this even supposed to mean? It seems like Number 2 is just a rephrasing of Number 1. Con is trying to say that the light from space-twin can only travel so fast, and since space-twin is moving away from earth-twin, a Doppler effect occurs that means earth-twin perceives space-twin as aging slower, but in reality, space-twin is not aging slower. In other words, there is an illusion happening and earth-twin is mistaken. See? This is just a rephrasing of Number 1 for Con to make it seem like he is proposing multiple resolutions to the paradox, but he only has one! Nice try Con, but I'm not going to be conned. It's absolutely hilarious how Con quotes one of my sources arguing for the following resolution: Only one twin experiences acceleration and deceleration, so only one twin ages less. He got that from my physicsoftheuniverse.com source, but this resolution is completely absurd. It tries to say that earth-twin, being still on the earth, feels no acceleration or deceleration, proving he is the one standing still, and aging normally. In contrast, (it goes on to explain) space-twin feels acceleration whenever he either: A) Makes a u-turn with his rocket to return to earth-twin to compare beard-length and number of wrinkles, or B) Stops his rocket, then goes backward to reunite with earth-twin. In both of these scenarios, space-twin can feel the motion, kind of like when in a car you make a sudden stop or sharp turn and you slide to the front or the side of your car... like on a rollercoaster. The proposed resolution is that this acceleration space-twin senses proves that he is the one actually moving. So Con thinks this proves only space-twin aged slower, and earth-twin will have a longer beard when they reunite to compare beards. But trying to use this argument to defend Special Relativity cuts both ways. If you prove space-twin is moving and earth-twin is standing still, you also prove the earth is standing still. Out with Copernicus, Einstein, and Special Relativity, and in with Geocentrism. Now I'm going to deal with the problem Con has with my scenario from last round where space-twin traveled a circular path. It doesn't matter if space-twin travels in a circle to make my point, so I'll rephrase. Space-twin blasts off from earth and travels indefinitely at a constant speed on a linear path away from earth-twin. See, no need for General Relativity! We are not dealing with varying speeds or direction. We just have space-twin shooting up in a straight line at a constant rate, leaving earth-twin behind. Remember that motion slows time for the one moving. So space-twin is aging slower than earth-twin because he is moving. But wait! The only way to claim space-twin is moving is by claiming earth is a non-inertial frame... in other words, standing still! If earth is standing still, it can't be revolving around the sun! There we go again, out with Einstein, in with Geocentrism. Con can try to get out of this is by saying that earth-twin is moving, and space-twin is remaining motionless while the earth shoots away from him. But if he does that, then space-twin is the center of the universe around which the celestial bodies revolve! Have no fear, there is one last choice for Con. He can say both twins are moving away from each other at the same speed, and so they are both aging slower than they were before they started moving, but at least now the speed of their aging has declined by the same amount, so they will still both be the same age at all times. But this makes the center of the universe to be the point equidistant from both twins... which means that, whenever earth-twin rode on planet earth while it shot away from space-twin at 45% light-speed, space-twin also shot away from earth-twin at 45% light speed. This means that before this event occured, earth was the motionless center of the universe. Which means for some odd reason, Geocentrism was true until the twins decided otherwise. Special Relativity is doomed no matter which way you look at it. Good luck Con. (3) http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...