Einstein Was Wrong

Lol it seems Con is correct that Einstein's Special Relativity version of the Twin Paradox has each twin merely perceiving the other age slower. Thanks for providing me with those links to Einstein's works, I appreciate it. However, just because I'm conceding that Einstein's stupid theory doesn't produce a paradox, doesn't mean I'm done yet. We will all agree that the passage of time is a matter of PERCEPTION No, I do not agree. The passage of time is not necessarily equal to it's perception. Objective time exists, whether it can be identified or not. Otherwise, your statement can be taken to it's absurd conclusion: that time goes backwards for those who percieve it to go backwards, and people can time-travel solely by taking hallucinogenic drugs. using an elaboration of Einstein's theory, explaining exactly why there is a distortion in the perception of simultaneity of the two clocks, namely the limited speed of light. Lol, the speed of light is not limited. Einstein's theory posits it is limited, but that assertion has never been empirically confirmed. The only reason people pretend light has a constant speed is to avoid violating Einstein's theory. I've read it all, and there is plenty mention of the OBSERVATION of time, and NONE of ACTUAL DIFFERENCES in the passage of time. I agree. "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." This is a factual statement. My opponent uses it as a premise. He claims it comes from Einstein. Yet HE RESOLVED THAT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG! Now here's a REAL paradox. A man who says that Einstein is WRONG INSISTS that Einstein's theory (although he quotes it falsely, see below) is RIGHT, ONCE AND FOR ALL. This is a clear contradiction. What he's saying is: Einstein is right, so he is wrong. Nope. Just because I lost this debate doesn't mean I'm going to let you get away with this fallacious argument. I did not intend that statement to be factual. I was merely assuming Special Relativity is true for the purpose of taking it to an illogical conclusion. "The short answer is that one twin stays in a an inertial reference frame, while the other doesn't. The twin that stays in an inertial frame ages more." So, NASA, according to my opponent, is the ultimate authority in this matter. This illustrates the stupidity of NASA's PR strategy. First (in the link I took from them earlier), they violate Special Relativity in order to demonstrate that one twin will be younger than the other at their reunion. Now, in the link Con gives, NASA assumes a preferred reference frame in order to determine which twin aged more, again violating Special Relativity. This is because the only way NASA can say one of the twins (and not both) are in an inertial reference frame is by assuming a prefered reference frame from which to judge which twin has no inertia. Firstly, we leave Special Relativity, and thus this debate. For no matter what my opponent "agrees" to, the resolution, once established, cannot be randomly changed. Nope. Nowhere in this debate did I agree that leaving Special Relativity would be a forfeit. Neither did I establish this debate was about Special Relativity. I purposely used the term Relativity ambiguously so that both Special and General Relativity could be considered. The word Special does not occur in the first round, nor the title, contrary to what Con seems to think. But for my entertainment, I will still pursue this. Awesome. Here's a NASA source for that: "At some point he turns around, thus switching reference frames again, and when he gets back home he now is back in reference frame of the Earth. Depending on how fast the ship went, much less time elapsed for him then his twin brother who stayed at home. This will be shorter by a factor of: sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ) : where v = speed and c = speed of light" http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...... So, now we also resolved the "paradox" why the optical illusion is a true solution (as long as the twins move apart), and the age difference upon return is also true, even if it is outside of this debate. Wow Con, you were doing so well until you just proved that General Relativity creates a paradox with no resolution!From your quote, NASA is claiming (according to General Relativity, apparently) that the space-twin will have aged slower while traveling through space and, at the reunion on earth, will appear to be the youngest from the perspective of both him and earth-twin.Now the only way to claim this is to say the acceleration of space-twin slowed his aging. However, the only way to claim that space-twin experienced acceleration is to assume earth is standing still. Now, as far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nothing preventing me from claiming, with equal validity, that it was earth, and not space-twin, that experienced acceleration and slower aging. Therefore, there is also nothing preventing me from claiming, with equal truth validity, that earth-twin will be younger than space-twin whenever they reunite.This means that it is equally true to say both twins are younger than each other at the reunion on earth. This is illogical. Thus, the Twin Paradox of General Relativity has no resolution. All of his own sources say there is no paradox. He's the only one who claims so with a false claim that a higher speed slows time. I don't care if my source say there isn't a paradox. The source you just provided claimed there wasn't a paradox yet accidentally demonstrated there was one, but it took myself to point it out. I'm sorry NASA can't see what's right under their noses. Now, thanks to you, Con, I'm not the only one claiming that a higher speed slows time. The source you just cited literally says: Depending on how fast the ship went, much less time elapsed for him then his twin brother who stayed at home. That is a blatant admission that higher speed slows time! Not only that, your source (in your own quote) goes on to provide a mathematical formula to figure out exactly how much time was slowed depending on speed! Now, the resolution of this debate was that the Twin Paradox has no resolution. I never clarified which version of the paradox, though. Was it the Special Relativity, or the General Relativity paradox? This debate has established that although the Special Relativity paradox might have a resolution, the General Relativity version doesn't. Therefore, voters are free to vote for either Con or myself with equal validity. It's all relative.