Twin Paradox and Einstein Mistake, A Mathematical Approach

Twin paradox and Einstein
mistake
a mathematical approach
Based on the book : “Logic in the Universe”
i
in
rs
rO
o
ct
Vi
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed inadvertently that the speed of light

is constant. The contraction of the length of a moving bar was rapidly accepted
by the theoretical physicist community (Voigt 1887). The approach of Poincaré
and Einstein was that Galileo's relativity does not contradict the constancy of
the speed of light and can be integrated into a new "Principle of Relativity", that
includes electromagnetic phenomena. This principle is used by Einstein to
develop the entire relativistic mechanics and dynamics that is the basis of all
current relativity.
What we want to prove is that the relativistic time contraction does not
accumulate, as Einstein suggests. Once stopped the movement, at any time
and anywhere, the length and time contraction disappears. This accumulation
of contraction is not used in the later development of the dynamic.
I understand that this proposition makes no contribution to this science. However, there are so many
scientists that approve this error and so many professors that lecture about it, that makes it
necessary to make this correction. Hundreds of websites are devoted to explaining the paradox.
Some scientists claim that they have showed its validity experimentally. More than a hundred years
of acceptance makes my job much harder. Following the idea of Max Planck, if I do not convince
anyone, young people may come to evaluate it.
We shall refer to Einstein's paper of
1905, "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies". More exactly we will
refer to the following document:
The citation are shaded to recognize
them.
The constancy of the speed of

light is what we want to
integrate with relativity. This is
the heart of any subsequent
development. Therefore, any
approach to contradict this
constancy is completely
unacceptable.
Let us take l as the length of a rigid bar at relative rest frame and l’ as the
length of that same bar in relative inertial motion. We have l > l'. Let us take t
and t’ as the time light takes in traversing the static and the relatively moving
rod, respectively. Given the constancy of the speed of light, the following
relations should hold:
Einstein tells us that the contraction

factor is:
1 : (1 – (v/c)2)1/2
For ease of exposition, let us call the contraction factor, Einstein's factor, then
we obtain the following function
E(v) = (1 – (v/c)2)1/2
This factor is dimensionless since v and c cancel their measurement units.
E(v) depends solely on v, since c is constant. What is most important to us, is
that E(v) does not depend on the extent of the movement, it depends solely
on the speed.
Once the system stopped moving, regardless of how long the movement has
lasted, we will have v = 0 and thus E(v) = 1.
v = 0 and 1 : E(v) implies => 1:1
This means that for v = 0, there is no contraction, no matter how long the
movement has lasted. Given the constancy of the speed of light, the following
relationships are evident.
so t’ = t * E(v) seconds which agrees with the first two terms of the
equation on page 10
If we subtract the contracted value from the value at rest we will have how
much the variable decreased. We have for the length
ld = l – l’ = l – l * E(v) = l (1 – E(v))
and for the time
td = t – t’ = t – t * E(v) = t (1 – E(v))
Let us call (1 - E (v)) the decreasing factor. Like E(v), this factor is
dimensionless. When v = 0, E(v) = 1 and 1 - E(v) = 0, it means that for
v = 0, there is no decrease in length or delay in time.
Now the article on the next page tells us that:
There is no transformation that can change the units of measurement of a

physical entity. Adding the units of measure proposed by Einstein to the
formula of the constancy of the speed of light we have:
and
Einstein proposition contradicts the constancy of the speed of light and is

totally unacceptable.
This change in units of
measurement has enormous
consequences.
A clock that is delayed td
seconds every second will be
physically and permanently
behind. With these units of
measurement the clock will be
behind in ntd seconds after n
seconds.
If the delay is td measured in seconds, the delay disappears when v becomes
0. These are the implications of changing the units. The permanent physical
delay is unacceptable because it is a consequence of incorrect measurement
units and contradicts the constancy of the speed of light.
I would like to tell to those who claim to have experimentally demonstrated
permanent physical contraction, that they should revise their calculations,
because what they have shown is that the speed of light is not constant, but
decreases with the extent of the experiment.
A curious detail is that Einstein, throughout the article,
did not use, units of measure, except in the case
mentioned. If he had not specified the seconds per
second, every reader would have assumed that the
contraction was given in seconds and therefore did not
accumulate. Einstein did not want that. So he takes
the time and effort to use the units of measurement,
this one time only, to underline that time contraction
accumulates and is physical and permanent.
This position of Einstein remembers what is known as Lorentz

'local time' (1900). But Lorentz’s time is not relativistic. Larmor
even speaks of how the atoms are physically deformed.
Einstein was a romantic. This led him to devote his time and
life to his idea of unifying all physical fields. He fall in love with
the beauty of Lorentz’s local time, but by doing so he forgot Or… is he
about logic and mathematics. laughing at us?
Moreover, the Lorentz’s local time is against relativity.

In 1904, Henri Poincaré, gave a conference "Present and
future of mathematical physics" in the Fair of St. Louis.
Among other principles he explains:
“The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of
physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an
observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a
uniform movement of translation; so that we have not
and could not have any means of discerning whether or
not we are carried along in such a motion.”
Putting it another way: of two objects in relative inertial motion it can not be
detected, which one is moving and which is not. And at the end of the
movement, which one of them moved and which one stayed static. Anything
that contradicts this statement contradicts the “Principle of Relativity".
Poincaré, Henri (1904), “L'état actuel et l'avenir de la physique mathématique”,

Bulletin des sciences mathématiques 28 (2): 302-324
English translation: Poincaré, Henri (1905), “The Principles of Mathematical Physics”,
in Rogers, Howard J., Congress of arts and science, universal exposition, St. Louis,
1904, vol. 1, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, pp. 604-622

Twin Paradox and Einstein Mistake, A Mathematical Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Twin Paradox and Einstein Mistake, A Mathematical Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Twin Paradox and Einstein Mistake, A Mathematical Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Twin paradox and Einstein

Based on the book : “Logic in the Universe”

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed inadvertently that the speed of light

The constancy of the speed of

Einstein tells us that the contraction

There is no transformation that can change the units of measurement of a

Einstein proposition contradicts the constancy of the speed of light and is

This position of Einstein remembers what is known as Lorentz

Moreover, the Lorentz’s local time is against relativity.

Poincaré, Henri (1904), “L'état actuel et l'avenir de la physique mathématique”,

You might also like