Einstein Was Wrong

My dear opponent, apologies require the will to change. Yet you have expressed in this round that you are not even trying to broaden your horizon, so I am afraid I must refuse to accept that apology.I'll try to sort out my opponent's futile rebuttals first, then proceed to his faulty arguments.My opponent claims that my arguments are the same.They are not, they only arrive at the same conclusion. Argument A: By logical reasoning alone I deduced that the alleged "paradox" can be resolved by closer examining the point of PERCEPTION. My opponent tries to omit this important component, while I showed above that Einstein formulated the special theory of relativity AROUND observation. http://www.bartleby.com...Now, my opponent himself defined the "paradox" we're discussing above:"Time passes slower for the twin in space, and he ages slower than his twin on earth.But time also passes slower for the twin on earth, so he ages slower than his twin in space."This, and this alone, is what we are debating here.We will all agree that the passage of time is a matter of PERCEPTION, because, as Einstein wisely stated:"Under these conditions we understand by the “time” of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation."So at the very core of Einstein's theory stands that time can only be measured reliably if you are in close vicinity of the clock.So, the theory we're discussing contains PERCEPTION as a component, and the paradox can easily be solved without further scientific knowledge: perception can be tricked easily.Argument B arrives at the SAME CONCLUSION, 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. Everybody knows that what we see of the stars is an image that is years to millennia old, while the light travels through space. Hence, the "paradox" of how the twins can each consider the other to age slower than themselves is easily resolved: the light takes time to reach the respective other twin, and thus the image of the clock is delayed, creating a MUTUAL illusion.Now, my opponent claims that both arguments are wrong, and his explanation really boggles the mind.He, who boldly claims that "EINSTEIN WAS WRONG [caps by me]", now claims thata) Einstein formulated in his SPEACIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY that the twin on board the spaceship ages slower.This is total nonsense. My opponent refuses to produce evidence for this from Einstein, allegedly because Einstein must either have dispersed his comments on time widely or has written too much about it. Neither is true. Einstein presented his groundbreaking work in 1920, in a single book (see: http://www.bartleby.com... ). Of this book a measly 10 short chapters establish the theory my opponent declares false. The last paragraph of chapter 7 states: "This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity." http://www.bartleby.com...Chapter 18 deals with the General Theory Of Relativity. 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. My opponent may still prove me wrong from these few pages.b) that the twin on the ship ACTUALLY AGES SLOWER: "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.c) that NASA backs up his claims. Firstly, again he makes the same misreading in the theory again (see below), secondly, here's a NASA website that declares that the "twin paradox" can be resolved: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov..."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. NASA says the twin paradox can be resolved. We deduce that the "paradox" can be solved. I win the debate. Or that NASA is wrong, in which case my opponent's argument is for naught.Let's get the misunderstanding out of the way once and for all.SPECIAL relativity, as quoted from Einstein above, deals with UNIFORM motion only, in inertial reference frames.Full Definition of INERTIA1a : a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force (Merriam-Webster's dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com... )"inertial" means "without disturbance by an outward force". Newton's mechanic states "Force equals mass times acceleration"/F=m*a. So, if a body experiences acceleration, it's no longer INERTIAL. If twin A and B are moving apart, only a signal can relay information between them. This creates the illusion I described above. The problem is, the twin in the ship never returns. No one will EVER be able to tell how quickly he REALLY ages, because only the signal returns. Now, Einstein declared that without any means to MEASURE something, it becomes irrelevant to the scientist. There's only ONE measure for time, and that is COMPARISON. But the ship never comes back.Now, if the ship turns around, which is what my opponent always gets wrong and quotes falsely and drags NASA into his nonsense (see above), things change dramatically. 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. But for my entertainment, I will still pursue this.Secondly, we enter GENERAL Relativity, and THAT discusses the effect of acceleration. NOW, things cease to be an optical illusion. Turning around, no matter HOW, means a full reverse of direction, which is a reverse of velocity, and a change of velocity is acceleration. Circle or straight line: if the ship returns, it is subjected to forces equal to gravitation. Gravitation slows the flow of time. Motion does not influence time. Acceleration does.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.As for the selective use of sources: my opponent chose to "ignore" all the relevant parts of his sources. But burden of proof is on him. He quotes sources that differ and ignores them, never disproves them. 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. There is no source for this, so all his arguments from there are naught, and I need not address them separately. The premise is wrong.