Einstein Was Wrong

First, allow me to point out that my opponent's own source presents a solution to the alleged "paradox" and unmasks it as a straw man argument designed to make Relativity appear faulted:"The twin paradox uses the symmetry of time dilation to produce a situation that seems paradoxical.""seems" as in "gives an impression", not a fact."it is fun to attempt to prove that it is wrong. Surely it's possible to make a paradox out of the symmetry of time dilation? Let's see.""The naive interpretation--the reason why the situation is called a paradox--is to assume that the situation is completely symmetrical.""As this assumption is false, there is no paradox."It is thus already proved that my opponent has this whole thing wrong from the beginning. And I do not have to show anything beyond that other than for my own entertainment. This debate is already over.Secondly, my opponent downplays one aspect of the original theory.http://www.phys.vt.edu..."12. Time DilationAnother consequence is that clocks in different inertial frames will be observed to run at different rates."This is what the theory states. That OBSERVATION is a key component of Special Relativity.Which presents simple solutions to the twin paradox as it is presented by my opponent.A) The logical explanation - disregarding content.My opponent states that two people PERCEIVING each other to be slower poses a paradox to which there is no solution.However, PERCEPTION can be deceiving, as we all know from optical illusions.The simple solution is: one or both of the twins perceive the situation wrong.Now, my opponent says that this disproves Einstein's Special Relativity.In FACT it only proves that the twin paradox with its very special setup (moving clocks and their relative observation) is not a proper test for the validity of Einstein's theory. The paradox relies on two witness accounts, one of which may even be distorted by the effects of travelling at speeds no human has probably ever experienced.This can hardly be called scientifically reliable. It even touches the fields of psychology and biology, as perception falls into that territory. How is this a proper test for a purely physical problem?It's not.That is the simple answer from the perspective of a person unfamiliar with Einstein's theory.B) The scientific explanation - light moves at a finite speed.Scientifically spoken, Special Relativity revolves all around light moving at the speed of c, commonly called "light speed" or "speed of light".Now, I understand that it is kind of hard to follow that, but I will make it easy by using a comparison with the speed of sound, which is also a constant in our atmosphere, about 300 yards per second.If a motorbike approaches us, the sound it produces seems to be high-pitched. If it drives away from us, the sound seems to be deeper. Yet, if we sit ON the bike, the sound is always the same. We know this as the "Doppler Effect". It is the result of the sound wave originating in the bike's engine moving along with the bike, which means that the amplitudes of the wave reach our ear faster than if the bike was not moving. This creates the illusion of a higher frequency of the sound, which our ear interprets as a higher pitch.With light, it's similar, except light CANNOT move any faster. Still, we have similar effects as the Doppler Effect, called red shift and blue shift.Now, the entire idea of relativity is that if we move at speeds close to the speed of light, OBSERVATION changes, just like we hear the approaching motorbike with a higher frequency than it actually produces. Everybody knows that we measure interstellar distances in light years. Which is a distance even light needs one year to travel.Now for the alleged "paradox" in layman's terms.Twin A sits in a spaceship and travels at 0.6 c, sixty percent of the speed of light, away from earth. Twin B remains on Earth.The "paradox" only emerges if we assume that B can observe the clock A has on his ship INSTANTANEOUSLY, and vice versa. But Special Relativity is about OBSERVATION. Which means we need the signal from A's clock to travel back to Earth, and from B's clock to A's ship. And no matter what signal we use, it cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because NOTHING moves faster.Let's break it down into phases.Phase 1: both twins are in very close proximity of each other.-----------------------------A0/0---------------------------><----------------------------B0/0----------------------------Their clocks are synchronized. A sees 0 on his clock, and so does B, which results in the time set (0/0). The same goes for B.Phase 2: distance between the two increases. Let's say the distance is now 0.6 light years. This means, distance has grown for one year, since A speeds away with 0.6 c. A's clock now shows 1. But B cannot see that. When A's clock advances, A is already 0.6 light years away from B, which means that B cannot see the clock reach the one-year-counter for another 0.6 years. B has to wait for that signal to arrive back on Earth, and because the signal cannot travel faster than c, it takes 0.6 years to travel the 0.6 light years A is away right now.And the same goes for A with B's clock.Now, what do they see right now on the clock of their respective twin? Let's have a look.Light or radio (=the signal) from A travels towards Earth at the speed of c, the ship moves FROM Earth at a speed of 0.6 c, or 6/10 c = 3/5 c. Which means that the light from the ship needs the reciprocal value of that in years to travel BACK to Earth.I have prepared a graph to show that in order to reach B back on Earth, the signal from A has to leave A's ship 0.625 years after Phase 1. Note that this signal CANNOT CHANGE once it has left the ship, just like you can't change what you just said. The sound waves of what you say will reach the nearest ear invariably, you literally can't take back things you said.This means that when the signal arrives on Earth, B "sees" that for A, only 0.625 years have passed. Wrongly.-----------------------------------------A1/0.625-----------><-------------B1/0.625---------------------------------------And that's basically it. Here's the fault in the observation, there's no paradox, as the same thing goes for A with B's signal. Now, why is there no paradox? Imagine two motorbikes passing each other. Each driver hears his own engine as a steady sound. Another bike approaches, making a higher-pitched engine sound, but as it passes, the sound becomes ever deeper.AND BOTH EXPERIENCE THE EXACT SAME THING!Or another example: if I stand 10 yards away, I will appear smaller to an observer who stayed behind.Yet to me, the one who stayed behind APPEARS smaller.Neither has shrunk in size.What my opponent basically proclaims is that this is impossible, since if one appears smaller, how can the other one also appear smaller? They cannot both be smaller than the other one, because that would mean an infinite loop.Yet we all understand that this is a matter of perspective, because to a third party in the middle of both, both appear equally shrunk.The "paradox" can be resolved just like that. Light or other signals take some time to reach a destination and transmit information. Just like a letter takes days or weeks to reach its destination.The confusion comes from the OTHER theory, General Relativity, that claims time ACTUALLY passes slower for objects subjected to gravitational forces and that mass increases with speed. But that's a totally different theory and has NOTHING to do with the twin paradox as presented by my opponent.If my opponent now post-hoc expands his resolution to include General Relativity, it would be an auto-forfeit of this debate.Which is all unnecessary, as my opponent has already given a source that contains a lengthy explanation why the twin paradox is not a paradox at all. And that explanation also expands to General Relativity.My opponent may now disprove his own source.