The Twins Paradox

Physics need not be inaccessible to the common man.

The Twins Paradox

Introduction and Overview

The twins paradox assumes that conservation of energy is the first and the last exclusive word on the subject of energy and, hence, of time since energy is a temporal derivative of non-temporal power.

But this is not true!

In other words, if energy is divided by power, or if power is divided by energy, either proportional ratio, resulting from the mathematical operator known as: division, will extract a time interval in which the energy has occurred.

In other words, the time interval can be extracted from energy by dividing power into energy or energy divided by power.

The total energy of a system is the net result of two opposing forces that contradict each other and occur simultaneously. One is thermodynamics, inclusive of the conservation of energy in which the output must always equal the input, and the other is nonlinear dynamics which is the complete opposite in which the output does not have to be proportional to the input due to chaos theory and several other factors of nonlinear dynamics which can impact the outcome.

Prologue

In my assessment of free energy, there are three options any one or more of which can occur at the same time to contribute to the total outcome.

The first possibility is to recycle the energy that is already within the system and to vary the rate of reuse in order to alter the impact that this rate of reuse has upon the quantity of work which can be performed by that fixed amount of energy (which may not be fixed, because it's probably leaking out like crazy). But if it can be reused fast enough, it will appear to be an alteration of the quantity of energy within the system even though energy has not been altered by anything other than entropy, because the quantity of work can vary in its outcome depending on how much energy is reused per unit of time.

The second possibility is to steal energy, or reappropriate it, from the environment in which case it is called energy harvesting, or from man-made sources in which case it is called theft.

The third possibility is similar to the second because we reappropriate energy from the field of the imagination cooked up by mathematicians in the days of the Western philosopher who went by the name of Descartes in which the square root of negative one is given a mythical existence which seems to be useful but cannot be proven for obvious reasons because we cannot test whether or not our solutions of the √-1 are valid, because we have no solutions to plug back in to this type of equation!

Yet, this is the foundation for imaginary power, that aspect of complex power that is imaginary. And if imaginary power should dominate the total power of complex power, then silly things can happen such as the increase or the decrease of total power over time if we include imaginary power within our assessment of total power.

This increase or decrease of total power, due to the prevailing influence of total power consisting mostly of imaginary power, is not useless in so far as our ability to recover usefulness from out of imaginary power by passing it through a resistor, or an inductive heating element of very high resistance, in order to boil water which will rotate a steam turbine shackled to the axle of a rotary electric generator and create all of the electric power we could possibly want without the use of the combustion of fossil fuels nor the toxic waste byproducts of a nuclear power plant.

This third type of free energy will only occur under extreme conditions of input starvation in which we do not entirely preclude the input of energy (which is advocated in the definition of a perpetual motion machine), but we do preclude the input of energy to an extreme degree in order to turn the source of energy into a catalyst of extreme electrical reactance and remove its significance as a source.

Discussion

It is not necessary to send somebody to a far away distant Galaxy light years away at nearly light speed who has an identical twin at the origin to which the spacebound twin returns and finds that his brother is dead because time for his brother moved forward while time for the brotherly twin in transit did not move as much or hardly at all. Although this is a fascinating paradox, it is not necessary to go to this extent to validate shifts in time, because shifts in time are misinterpretations of the oscillations of nature.

Each oscillation is its own timepiece keeping track of its own time at its own unique frequency of periodicity. But if we start to make comparisons and analyses between two or more different frequencies, we will start to have confusions about time and how does time move: does it move forward, or backwards, quicker, or slower.

This comes about because of how we view a pumping frequency versus a signal frequency and the transformation that can occur in between those two respective inputs and outputs. If the transformation is predicated on the nonlinear dynamic aspect of electrical reactance, and the input pumping frequency is taken as the reference and we are not giving it full power to act as the prime mover, but we are giving it a scant amplitude of power so that the prime mover is no longer predicated on amplitude but is predicated upon frequency alone and not much else, then the so-called prime mover of the input frequency becomes a mere catalyst stimulating over-reactance to amplify the scant input amplitude into a gargantuan quantity of outcome either: instantaneously, or in nanoseconds, or tens of millions of seconds, and anywhere in between.

In other words not much amplitude is required to carry it into the circuit.

And then, if perchance, we insert electrical reactance circuitry in such a way as to encourage the buildup of imaginary power at the expense of very little input power, and we encourage a parasitic frequency to form and nurture the amplitude of that parasitic frequency so as to increase its amplitude at an exponential rate, our perspective of time becomes all mixed up, because our input frequency is no longer the reference for time and it is no longer the reference for prime movement. Because the parasitic frequency is moving faster than the input frequency and the parasitic frequency is also contributing far more amplitude of energy then is the input pumping frequency (since this parasitic amplitude is predominantly or exclusively composed of imaginary power which is – in itself – a mathematical oddity since it does not exist except within the mind of the mathematician or computer simulation).

Since the parasitic frequency is a byproduct of the input frequency stimulating the electrical reactance to accumulate a quantity of imaginary power which far exceeds any quantity of real power which initially catalyzed this response from the capacitors and coils within the circuit, it's impossible to separate the parasitic output signal frequency from the input pumping frequency. Both are as much a part of each other as if they were one and the same composite frequency.

Hence, it becomes plausible to assume that time has gone backwards because of this confusion and error of judgment. Instead, the input frequency is slower than the output frequency and the input amplitude is drastically less than the output of amplitude. This is the only set of anomalies which has occurred and no transition or shift of time has occurred. But, instead, an illusory shift in time has occurred if we don't analyze the entire picture correctly which is what happens under simulation because the simulator assumes common sense which does not apply to this particular situation that I have outlined.

Yet, this is a backdoor into overcoming the difficulties of executing the twin paradox to see if the twin paradox is actually true as a theoretical proposition or is it just a bunch of fantasy cooked up by dreamy-eyed physicists who don't know any better since they never tried it out before.

And this also refutes our fantasy that time is an absolute frame of reference which is impossible because time is merely the byproduct of any particular oscillation, be it electrical or whatever, because the periodicity need only pertain to change of circumstances of one sort or another – not necessarily electrical in nature, and whether or not the change is repetitive in a regular fashion in which each period is of the same duration as the one before and the one subsequent to the present cycle of oscillation.

An atomic clock, for example, oscillates at a precise frequency according to the resonant frequency of a particular isotope of cesium. And, then, we setup all of our watches and clocks to match our point in time for their synchronicity to that timepiece of executive authority, worldwide.

But this is just one frequency that we are using as a reference for all others. What if, from a cosmic perspective, we possess an opinion of ourselves with too much undue importance and self-relevance, assigning too much importance to our atomic clock when, in reality, any oscillation throughout creation could be used as a reference. This necessitates reconsidering the possibility that our interpretation of time is overly simplified and not entirely accurate since parasitic frequencies can arise and screw up our entire perception of time!

By the way, the buildup and accumulation of imaginary power is not a useless exercise of our imagination (pun intended)! Imaginary power can be made to become useful by passing it through a resistor, or the resistive aspect of an inductive heating element, to boil water – to rotate a steam turbine which is shackled to the axle of a rotary electric generator – and do away with all traditional electrical power plants predicated upon the burning of fossil fuels or the output of nuclear waste material.

---

For further reference, please see the following references for background information on this topic…

My peer-reviewed article, published in a computer database journal, on the topic of: The Relativity of Energy and the Reversal of Time is a Shift in Perspective.

What is a Fourier analysis?

A YouTube interview with George Van Tassel on the relationship between frequency and time » frequency = 1÷ time » which agrees with my statements up-above in which the reference for time is derived from a frequency of oscillation.

This doesn't say much if we realize that we have failed to logically derive from conventional wisdom the equation, above, on our own without help from some so-called alien if we recall that conventional wisdom believes in the speed of light and the above equation is analogous to another conventional thought within the realm of physics in which frequency = 1 ÷ wavelength. Thus, the rate at which the speed of light travels along a distance of one wavelength is a yardstick for time.

---