Einstein Was Wrong

For the record:My opponent just declared: "I'm conceding that Einstein's stupid theory doesn't produce a paradox".As opposed to his bold claim, this DOES mean this debate is over. But my opponent just won't quit, which I personally consider bad conduct.So, up for one last Hurrah!First, a few quick rebuttals:A) "Objective time exists, whether it can be identified or not."If we were to accept ANYTHING WE CAN IMAGINE BUT NOT MEASURE as "real", then somewhere out there are Death Stars, hobbits, and of course an old man with a white beard on a throne of gold ruling Earth from the heavens while the Spaghetti Monster looks on smilingly. If something cannot be discerned, it must be considered non-existent for all practical matters.Just as my opponent - in his typical self-contradiction - simply ASSUMES time going backwards to be ABSURD, because he cannot perceive that happening and hence concludes it does not exist. So, reality for my opponent is simply what he WANTS to be real. What he overlooks is this: objective time - since we cannot identify it - MIGHT BE THE ONE WE CONSIDER GOING BACKWARDS, THEN. How do we know, if we can't identify it? My opponent wishes to define time. So did Einstein. So do we all. Anything in our world falls in two categories: that we can perceive (called "physics") and all we can NOT perceive (called "metaphysics").Objectivity is the property of PHYSICS. So, unless we can measure or perceive objective time, it doesn't exist. Only as a concept, an abstract idea about which we can philosophize. Shifting it to metaphysics.B) "The only reason people pretend light has a constant speed is to avoid violating Einstein's theory."From Einstein:"That light requires the same time to traverse the path A —> M as for the path B —> M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” http://www.bartleby.com...The only reason why we define light speed as a constant is that it is our best shot at arriving at the idea of a concept of TIME at all. If light could vary in speed (and that was unlimited, too), then no two things could be considered "simultaneous", due to the Doppler effect my opponent already conceded. If no two things can be called simultaneous, nothing can be called successive in contrast, and "objective time" CANNOT exist.Basically, what Einstein concludes is that - since photons and light are EVERYWHERE - their time frame should be the UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE. Their speed is assumed constant, for else the principle or relativity would make all scientific observation totally unreliable. Leading to the conclusion that we know nothing at all, nothing is right and nothing wrong. All is inconclusive. Which then means that my opponent cannot prove Einstein wrong and I win.C) "I was merely assuming Special Relativity is true for the purpose of taking it to an illogical conclusion."My opponent adamantly claimed: "motion slows time. It does not merely create the illusion of slowed time to external observers."Since this is - as conceded by my opponent - NOT PART OF EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, his defense falls flat. He alone assumed that, without any notion of playing devil's advocate here. If I was mistaken, it was due to his shortcomings as a debater. I can only judge from what I read, not my opponent's thoughts.D) *rant about NASA's PR*To quote my opponent: "I suggest he take it up with NASA, not me."E) "Neither did I establish this debate was about Special Relativity"That is due to the fact that my opponent up to the last round kept confusing the two. His original argument and resolution only addressed the twin paradox according to Special Relativity. Changing the resolution is a forfeit by default, no agreement necessary.F)"General Relativity creates a paradox with no resolution!"Oh, here we go again! No, it doesn't.The General Theory of Relativity states that Special Relativity cannot explain EVERYTHING, just some things, namely in the very special case that ONLY TWO OBJECTS are observed in inertial motion.Special Relativity cannot address - as stated above - matters of force and acceleration, including first and foremost "turning around".Einstein writes: "Material particles sufficiently far removed from other material particles continue to move uniformly in a straight line or continue in a state of rest. We have also repeatedly emphasised that this fundamental law can only be valid for bodies of reference K which possess certain unique states of motion, and which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other. Relative to other reference-bodies K the law is not valid. Both in classical mechanics and in the special theory of relativity we therefore differentiate between reference-bodies K relative to which the recognised “laws of nature” can be said to hold, and reference-bodies K relative to which these laws do not hold." http://www.bartleby.com...The difference between these two types of reference-bodies is FORCE, or GRAVITATION.G)"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."The trouble here is: that is my opponent's theory, not EINSTEIN'S, which we are debating here.Now, EINSTEIN said there is a DEFINITE reason preventing him (and anyone in their right mind) from claiming such nonsense, and that is the postulate of OTHER POINTS OF REFERENCE.My opponent again confuses Special Relativity (2 uniformly moving points of reference) with GENERAL RELATIVITY (EVERY point in the universe must be eligible as point of reference, though they are not all equivalent).Acceleration is NOT relative, that's the entire idea of General Relativity - and hence there is no paradox here, either.Let's say I watch both twins from a non-moving spaceship. I maintain the exact same difference to the twin on Earth at all times, without applying force. It is obvious that all universe will appear as relatively constant to me. Except for that rocket ship with the other twin, which is accelerating away.Now, the only way of declaring relativity here would be this: the ship doesn't accelerate, IT MOVES ALL OF THE UNIVERSE.Alas, it is impossible due to the conservation of energy, the one basic law to which we've found no exception so far. The kinetic energy of the ship is E=0.5*m*v².The mass of the ship be several tons. The mass of the universe is nigh infinite. So, Energy, which is Force divided by time, differs if we accelerate the ship or accelerate EVERYTHING ELSE. That's why it is obvious that the ship is accelerated, while Earth remains in its usual orbit. Hence, no paradox here.G) "That is a blatant admission that higher speed slows time!"No, it's not.The faster we go, the harder we have to brake in order to turn around and the harder we have to accelerate to go back again. Time passes slower with ACCELERATION, so a higher speed means that if we want to CHANGE that speed, we age differently. WHILE moving at that constant high speed, time only illusionarily passes slower. That's the Special Relativity my opponent conceded to, and that formula is - as he would know, had he read Einstein's work - the Lorentz transformation from SPECIAL RELATIVITY. http://www.bartleby.com...There's really nothing my opponent has on his hands despite lack of understanding for physics.Please consider when voting. Thanks everybody!