Resolving temporal paradox

The twin paradox really is a paradox and I have been avoiding the issue. Einsteinian relativity is extremely difficult to grasp in the first place, more complex to resolve without paradox and even more complex to explain the mistake that is being made.

It may seem that time is distorted and also length. There is a vast difference between "seems" and is. Pinch effect, decay time changes, frequency shifts, and many other things are real measured effects. A system is composed of parts and in any measurement, the instrument is part of the system. I can apply a conversion which resolves the apparent change. The biggest problem is the idea of the number one and identity or individual singularity. I can have two glasses of water and pour them into a larger glass and have one glass of water. One (1) is a logical concept and has no corresponding physical object or state. The result is that things can act in the measured space as a result of changes in other spaces. It certainly looks paradoxical, but it is not a distortion of "time". F·d contains no consideration of time of travel across space. When space is relative in space, it can appear as time, but there is no such dimension to the physical world. It is perception of time that is changed. It is very confusing to see different space in normal space, but it is a matter of method only to apply it. Two planes can intersect and have an infinite number of relationships in 3 space. 3 space also has an infinite number of relationships in 4-space. The difference is how a point in 2 or 3 or 4 is mapped to the experience and thus the memory of it.

Much is made of self awareness, but it is my opinion that self-awareness exists when there is a system of more than 1 particle. A particle has effect and responds to the effect of the second and as a result, the particles exist as a continuous reflection of the interaction. A small mass orbiting a large object has a different interaction based on the relative relationship of the elements. This is not a complete definition as the knowing is a different subject , but overlaps with comparison and storage. I could say two is aware but does not know it.

Energy has no position and in that way is similar to a vector. A vector can exist anywhere and still exist as the same concept. Moving a drum of gun powder from one place to another has no influence on the stored energy. Thus energy moves without influence of momentum.

As a consequence, energy at <x₁,y₁,z₁,w₁> is just at happy at <x₂,y₂,z₂,w₂> and does not resist the transformation in space.

Kinetic energy is relative to the observer if you want to call it that. I would prefer that the relationship of the source and destination determines the relationship to a third element.

By insisting that time has a real physical parallel or bijection it adds a personal experience to the process and is the same as a self referential system. It is always possible to step out of an observation, but it is not possible to step out of observation itself and continue to observe or examine.S₃/S₄ and its relationship results in some odd appearances, but when viewed and transformed by the appropriate method, they are completely consistent. The idea that a system that is composed of Aa can influence Aa to make Aa is stated as Aa_(n)=Aa_(n+1) and thus Aa_(n)!=Aa_(n). This is the nature of paradox itself. If Aa !=( not equal ) Aa or Aa = something other than Aa. It could also be said as Aa exists only in a place where it is not. In other words, it does not exist.

There are no words, letters or sentences in this.

Einstein and all who ascribe to the transformations are incorrect, or more precisely incomplete. It has been unknown thousands of years since a person has gazed at life and wondered what makes it all operate. It has been hundreds of years since Newton and Galileo. It is not reasonable to assume that all of it will be understood in a blink of an eye. There are some things that I know are unresolved, but that just means the puzzle game can continue, which suits me fine.

There is absolutely no such thing as a photon and one might as well say that they received a radio-on from the channel eleven station and have converted it to a thinkon. I am sure that Tesla understood these things, but it is odd that he did not look beyond. It is easy to be caught in self gratification and sadly that is perhaps what consumed his great intellect before it could be applied to the bigger picture.

photon:

n : a quantum of electromagnetic radiation;

 an elementary particle that is its own antiparticle

E=hf, that is an interesting equation and I am sure I will visit that place too. The problem is that things have to get more complex before they get simpler.

There is a condition where Aa_(n) can equal Aa_(n+x) and that is where Aa is incompletely defined and then Aa_(n,m) = Aa_(n+x,m+y) . However, that is not what is the resolution to this particular twin paradox.