Einstein Was Wrong

"I appreciate the effort my opponent has put into his response, but I guarantee that nobody, not even himself, can make sense of what he just said."My opponent generalizes from his own intellectual shortcomings to the general public. But we have several rounds to fill, so here goes."Let me demonstrate one of the biggest fallacies of his self-contradictory, convoluted argument." asf.What I clearly wrote is that my opponent's OWN SOURCE offers ONE way to resolve the alleged paradox. It uses General Relativity and uses an asymmetry. So, the paradox is resolved and the debate was already over at that point.THEN I offered ANOTHER TWO WAYS of resolving the "paradox". One simple, logical, argument A, which my opponent does not even address and thus CONCEDES, again ending the debate.The second one using a time diagram referring only to Special Relativity, in analogy to the graph shown in my previous source here: http://www.phys.vt.edu...This source, as well as mine, refers only to Special Relativity, which does not address time itself, only the constant speed of light c.For my opponent's irrelevant claim of an asymmetry: it's another straw man argument.My opponent's own source declares:"The causes of this asymmetry are the fact that Jane reverses direction and Joe does not, and the finite time that light takes to transmit this information to Joe means that Joe doesn't get the news immediately. Jane leaves one inertial frame and joins another, and she has the effect of that change immediately. Joe, on the other hand, doesn't notice the effects of Jane being in a different inertial frame until much later because she is a long way away from him when it happens. The asymmetry is as simple as that." http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au...Now, as we see the asymmetry happens only when the ship turns around. But I resolved the alleged paradox with the ship moving in one direction, just as my motorcycles move in one direction and don't turn. So, the asymmetry does not happen in my examples, because nobody reverses direction. I don't have to go that far to show that the alleged paradox can be resolved.Need I remind my opponent that the "paradox" he wanted to show was THIS:"The space-twin will age slower than the earth-twin, but at the same time, the earth-twin will age slower than space-twin."And I have shown that this can be explained in two ways: A) either or both twins are mistaken. B) Information cannot travel faster than light.With the explanation given in my opponent's source this makes THREE possible ways to resolve the "paradox".His NEW source offers a FOURTH solution, btw.:"This is sometimes considered a paradox in that each twin sees the other twin as travelling, and so, it is argued, each should see the other aging more slowly. But in fact this is based on a misunderstanding of relativity, because in reality only one twin experiences acceleration and deceleration, and so only one twin ages less." http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...This means my opponent has now relied heavily on TWO SOURCES, BOTH OF WHICH SAY THERE IS NO PARADOX FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.Well, that's a concession if ever I saw one."If I say that the space-twin is blasting off into space but the earth-twin is standing still, that's not symmetrical, since both twins aren't doing the same thing. But in the motor-bike analogy that Con presented, he said they are passing each other, apparently at the same speed. That makes the motor-bike analogy symmetrical. This means it's a false analogy."Aaah, so now it's a FALSE analogy, but yet my opponent just used that analogy as an argument against my point. You can't eat the cake and keep it, dear opponent. If the analogy is false, then it proves NOTHING, as it would simply be off the point. Which it is not, as I was explaining relativity."Now, my opponent says Special Relativity says movement causes things to appear to age slower, but they don't actually age slower. This is completely wrong. Special Relativity indeed says that motion causes time to slow.(2)"No, it doesn't. Since the intellectual capacity of my opponent is too limited to even reply to each of my arguments, I have JUST the proper source for him. Maybe this is simple enough to get through to him:http://www.dummies.com..."If you move fast enough through space, the observations that you make about space and time differ somewhat from the observations of other people, who are moving at different speeds.""Special relativity includes only the special case (hence the name) where the motion is uniform. The motion it explains is only if you’re traveling in a straight line at a constant speed. As soon as you accelerate or curve — or do anything that changes the nature of the motion in any way — special relativity ceases to apply. That’s where Einstein’s general theory of relativity comes in, because it can explain the general case of any sort of motion."The shift in actual time is subject to general relativity, thus. Which is not our topic. Despite my warning, my opponent has crossed over into General Relativity, which is a change of topic. And an auto-forfeit.Let's hear it from Einstein himself:"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A." from http://www.bartleby.com...That's special Relativity, directly from the original source. Nothing about time passing at different speeds. Just a matter of perception while in motion."Space-twin blasts off into space and makes a round trip about the earth, ending up back where he started."This is NOT the twin paradox as presented before. Returning to Earth requires a CHANGE OF DIRECTION, and thus crosses over to the GENERAL theory of Relativity.Let's hear THAT from Einstein:"THE BASAL principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion." from: http://www.bartleby.com...Returning to Earth is NOT a uniform motion, thus not part of SPECIAL RELATIVITY and hence NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE. Auto-forfeit by my opponent.So, summarizing:My opponent quoted two websites, both of which explain differently why there is no paradox.He did not refute my argument A.He also did not refute my argument B, because he simply misinterprets the SPECIAL Relativity as presented by Einstein and changes the resolution post-hoc.I have thus presented no less than FOUR ways to explain how to people can perceive each other as aging slower while one is moving in a spaceship at high speeds. I have met my burden of proof.I employ my opponent to find - in Einstein's original work - any mention of motion causing time to slow in order to back up his outlandish claims.All Einstein says is that, while an observer is in motion, two incidents that would appear as simultaneous from ONE FIXED POINT IN SPACE appear as NOT simultaneous to the observer.All else is false conjecture.