the clocks paradox. not resolved contrary to claims.

the clocks paradox, also called the twins paradox. an error in the theory of relativity.

here’s a clear video presentation of the paradox, one minute long, without useless additional information or inserted secondary elements to mess with your understanding..

there are some “solutions” to the paradox, by physics professors, using complex mathematics, showing solution with the difference in speed only, without the use of acceleration/deceleration. the academics are claiming that those physicists who explain the paradox with gravitational effect, don’t know what they are talking about. the problem with the complex math is that the professors fail to produce the calculations twice, beginning once from the reference point of one observer, and then from the reference point of another observer. that can only mean one thing — the math is wrong. there must be an error in the formulas. to prove the clocks/twins paradox with speed only, without local gravity produced by acceleration and deceleration, the math must be performed twice, once from each reference point, coming to a different result with the same formulas, which is impossible. there are careers involved, and tenures, thus it makes total sense for the professors to stop short before performing the same calculations again, from another point of reference in the clocks/twins paradox.

also there are some “solutions” described with the help of graphs (in the end of the article i give one example), but the same issue remains — there are clear logical errors. it is easy for anyone to debunk a “solution” without going into details of an explanatory presentation — simply let the demonstration to be performed twice, coming from each reference point. one must be able to, using exactly the same demo from the beginning till the end, without arbitrary changes to formulas or graphs, come to a different result from different reference point. they must show that in first demonstration the clock of one observer, who is the reference, is ticking faster, and on repeated calculation the clock of another observer, who is taken as reference, is ticking slower. it is impossible.

this is one of the contradictions in logic over which i was fighting with my physics teachers in my school times. i didn’t have a name to the paradox then, i just noticed the error. back then, for me the paradox of clocks was resolved by the existence of aether. in fact the whole trouble began when a physics teacher said that the aether doesn’t exist. then i came in with my logic that it will create problems in the theory of relativity. later i realized that even the existence of aether doesn’t resolve the paradox, because a “stationary” observer on earth may in fact be moving with enormous speed through the aether together with the earth or solar system or galaxy or cluster of galaxies, who knows. the speeding space ship will move in one direction through the aether, and then on another direction coming back to earth, in the result having the same amount of aether passed through the space ship as through the stationary observer on earth during the same time period.

thus the existence of the aether is not a solution to the relativity problem in clocks/twins paradox. it could only be a solution if earth would be stationary relative to aether. more probable is that our galaxy is closer to a stationary position in aether, which means that in different points of rotation around the galaxy and around the sun, the earth is moving at different speeds through the aether. this could be possible to measure and to find out the stationary reference point of the aether in the universe.

to those who missed my article on existence of aether read here..

the only way to resolve the paradox is to revisit the theory of relativity critically. in my view the solution is in the effect of gravity, instead of the effect of speed. refer to my articles about it..
the fact that technological advances in the precision of measurements and modern supercomputers have proven the theory of relativity to be correct many times, is not an obstacle to further scrutiny of the theory. some of the formulas may have errors in them. to put it into computer slang: “garbage in — garbage out”. this is in no way to diminish the value of current understanding in physics, i am simply saying that we are far from knowing everything and from being always correct. physics textbooks have been rewritten hundreds of times. nevertheless, the physics books have way more truth in them than holy scriptures.

to conclude the article, in the video below is an example of a popular, but wrong solution to the paradox. the connecting lines on the graph are there suddenly changing direction. if the reference point was the same, then the lines should have gone all in one direction on the entire length of the graph, or they show going back in time. the lines could only change direction, if in the middle of the graph the reference point was suddenly changed, arbitrarily, without finishing the explanation from the first reference point. and on top of that, the graph was fit into an assumption of slowing of time of a moving object from the very beginning. a correct presentation of a solution must give the correct answer in the end, with no arbitrary manipulation of data or presumption of facts.

watch the video..

i have seen many such graphs, supposedly explaining different phenomena in physics, presented in a visually appealing form and told with a nice clear voice suggesting to listeners knowledge of the subject, but in fact are arbitrary drawings of graphs and pointless calculations fitting some presumed truths, a show-off for those who don’t know any better.

my advice is, don’t take any explanations without critical thinking, either from textbooks, popular ones on social media, or rare and new ones.. neither mine. i may also make mistakes. in any case i do my best to avoid any errors, thinking deeply before publishing my solutions. when i doubt in my understanding of a subject, then i state it next to the presented ideas, not to sound like i know the ultimate truth, misleading others and wasting their time.


the biggest lie in the universe, literally — the claim that aether doesn’t exist.

the failed detection of the aether by michelson-morley experiment and what was wrong with it. and the new experiment that proved the existence of aether — published in science magazines without making into textbooks.

before i post my article about gravity i must explain some common misconceptions in physics, and bring clear examples where anyone can see the contradicting truths in physics.

i’ve been giving head aches to my physics teachers already when i was a schoolboy, with simple logic proving einstein wrong, but i thought back then that i must be missing something in the theory of relativity, so i wasn’t absolutely sure. still, in all the years i haven’t found an error in my logic and i found no new evidence in physics to prove me wrong. rather contrary — i found more lies in physics and i can’t understand how people fail to see the problems in their theories and/or experiments as those are so obvious. i repeat, as i’ve said it before, that i’m not a trained physicist in an academic level, so i cannot prove my theories with calculations. or, to be correct, rather i have no time to learn again all the mathematics which i have long forgotten — i have always been good at math and physics in the past, even coming up with my own math formulas on the spot during exams, when i couldn’t remember the learned ones, and got correct answers passing the exams. now i only use simple logic and try to picture in my mind the phenomena, which i learn about in science news.

thus, the “disclaimer” made, now i present some theories in physics and show my logic that proves the theories wrong.

not to throw at you too much information in one article, i present my understanding of the universe little by little. i present some classical explanations, with which i was never happy from the beginning, getting into arguments with physics teachers about mistakes in logic..

detecting the aether.

how come none of the physicists can see the flaw in logic and in the design of the apparatus with which the experiment was conducted: if there is slowing of light beam in one direction due to drag created by the aether, then it is cancelled out by speeding up of the light beam by exactly the same amount as it was dragged, when it returns after bouncing back from the mirror. after splitting, both beams must arrive to the same point at exactly the same time, no matter how you turn the apparatus and where on earth it is located. the only thing they could have demonstrated with that apparatus was the good building skills and precise calibration of the apparatus itself, but not the existence of aether.

watch the video and be surprised how blind the entire generations of physicists can be..
(usually i try not to listen to this “scientist” because he — the first and last one talking on video — is a sellout. once a scientist promotes genetically modified food giving absolutely inadequate comparison with natural selection and selective breeding, that means the scientist can tell anything that makes money, without sticking to scientific truths. but on this video it makes sense to show his explanation, because he is wrong and that’s the point i’m making here.)

anyway, luckily i’m not the only one seeing the flaws in physics. there’s a proof now that aether does exist. the presenter of the lecture didn’t obviously realize the flawed design of the original experiment and didn’t know that the new experiment was done not just more precisely but with a different design of the apparatus, but he makes the point that the proof of aether is still not widely known..

a documentary in switzerland.

some time ago, in the post about my work as a street vendor of a magazine in bern (by the way, i am waiting for two months already a reply to the request to extend my work visa — the company has applied for me but so far there’s a total silence — no positive nor negative response from the swiss immigration authorities, thus i’m packing my things in my mind already — i can no longer work for the company), i mentioned a documentary in switzerland where i took part telling my story. here’s the link to the earlier post..

now, while searching in the archives my old video recordings, i found the film which i told about. it is mostly in german though (swiss german). there are some translation errors — i said “ireland” which was translated in subtitles as “iceland” where i have never been, and my first political asylum request was in subtitles “1990” when in said “1999” (when i mentioned the year second time, first time it was translated correctly). there’s also an error in my own talk when i told “spring” instead of “autumn”. anyway, you will get a general picture of my life at the time. the film was made in 2014, in the summer. the low video quality is because i found in the archives the file of reduced size, not the original file.

the parts where i talk are in english, in four places.. at 2’18”, 4’40”, 7’08” and at 12 min — so just wait if you don’t understand the rest, or skip to the right time.

here’s the short documentary film..