martillo

swansont, No I'm not. The problem is exactly the same. As I said in the presentation of the problem: "Is a new version of the well known twins paradox." I do understand it perfectly. Why don't you present your solution to the problem? Show what your calculations says! Give your answer on what really happen to the twins. Which twin ages less and at what rate?

Swansont, I have already agree that in the original problem (post 22) the first inconsistency could be removed by a consideration that I suppose is done in practice. I mentioned that I have never heard anyplace, while presenting Lorentz Transform, something like: "To correctly apply Lorentz Transform the direction of the referential choosed must have allways the direction of the velocity of the moving object". Have you ever heard this? I believe is not a so obvious consideration... Anyway three inconsistencies remain! It is not. In the new problem there is the symetry that both twins accelerates symetrically and so acceleration cannot be considered to decide from one or other observation as the true one. The other difference is that they don't stop at the cross point so they don't come back to the same referential. This doesn't allow to consider the possibility they could return to have the same age. Now, I have just made the relativistic math considering the three possible referentials of observations and each one gives a different prediction of what happen to the twins! Then it is obvious that there is an inconsistence of the theory here. Here I am right. Then the problem still is "the perfect problem to show Relativity INCONSISTENCY!

Not yet, may be really interested ones are watching the thread... insane_alien, Which is that error I made?

OK, if everybody agree with this, I have nothing more to say and I go away.

No, I presented my calculations and you pointed your disagreement with some arguments that I have refuted with perfect logic and perfect math. You haven't demonstrated anything. But if you don't want to discuss anymore and stay with your point of view, ok, is your decission. I will continue discussing with people interested to find the truth.

Just because I'm right!

The distance is not relevant in the problem.

After some discussions in other forums I have found that the first inconsistency can be removed if we consider that the frames to be considered to apply Lorentz Transform have the same direction of the direction of the velocity of the observed object. (can be called "switching frames). I did considered this possibility some time ago but as I never see anyplace, while presenting Lorentz Transform, something like: " to correctly apply Lorentz Transform the referentials must always have the same direction of the velocity of the moving object". It seems that in practice this is considered valid. Anyway, still two inconsistencies remain: Note that if we want to use clocks to compare times elapsed we can synchronize them simultaneously in the instant of take off of the space-ships out of the mother-ship.

As I mentioned in the head post photographs can be taken by the twins and be sent to anybody else (even us!) to see what is really happening. Photographs cannot change if we pass them to one referential or another isn't it? Absolute Reality exist!

Then one of them is right and the others just have illusions or is that nobody sees what is really happennig?

Lorentz Transforms have in the equations velocities not speeds.

ok, then velocities +v and -v, with the signals, must be substituted in the original Lorentz Transforms and those are which I have used.

In the problem they don't stop! Do you mean that the relativistic effects calculated by the Lorentz Transforms are simply illussions? What is observed in the relativistic frames is not real?

Sayonara3, Theoretically "fixed" means strongly linked to a frame. "Absolute" means for me: fixed to the Absolute Referential of the Universe if this could exist. But in this thread I gave "fixed" the same meaning the astronomers give for what they call "fixed stars" which means the stars that seems to have no movement. But I repeat, this is not relevant to the problem as the movement of Earth is not relevant in the Classic Twin's Paradox.

Everybody agree with this? Once a referential of observation is choused one twin have "speed +v and the other "speed" -v and in the original Lorentz Transform the signal is relevant! Any way this dosen't remove the second and third inconsistencies: Each twin sees thee other twin aging less and the ages observed are different from those seen by the mother-ship.

Sayonara3, I'm not considering any absolute point. I said to consider a "fixed" point as the "fixed" stars (astronomers call the stars this way) just to make the most ideal situation that can be imagined. Actually in Relativity only the relative movements really matter and I'm considering just relative movements in the same way as the classic twins paradox. In the classic paradox the movement of Earth does not matter isn't it? The same way any possible movement of the fixed stars doesn't matter for the problem (although is an interesting question...).

To describe the experiment I must define velocities (magnitude and direction). In the Lorentz formulas only the magnitude, is used of course, but with the signals, don't forget.

Here is a "perfect" experiment thought to show the inconsistence of Relativity Theory. Is a new version of the well known twins paradox. Just to not consider the movement of Hearth we will think in a mother-ship that goes to the most "fixed place" you can imagine. May be some point at a fixed position relative to the known "fixed stars of the Universe. The mother-ship goes there brakes and stop remaining there. After that, two small space-ships with twins accelerate in opposite directions, travel some time and brake in the same manner making a perfect symmetric travel to stop at some far distance. After that, they turn their space-ships in the opposite direction and at some time (may be synchronized by the mother-ship that is at equal distance from them) they accelerate and travel in a second symmetrical flight deviating a negligible little (to not collide) just to pass very near of them and the mother-ship at the same instant but they don't brake!. The intention is to capture the movement as they are flying at some considerable velocity to detect some relativistic effects. We must consider that the state of both twins can be directly observed by them and by the people in the mother-ship! For example photographs can be taken at the instant of "crossing" and be sent to everybody, even the twins, even to us to analyze the phenomenon! Now the situation is: Both are travelling at some velocity v but in opposite directions just in front of the mother-ship. For simplicity we will consider time zero this instant they are in front of the mother-ship. Now we will apply Lorentz Transform to the twins to see how they are aging. Note that age is an intrinsic property of living individuals. We are going to consider the results in different frames and compare it. Any phenomenon of Nature is independent of the referential we chouse to observe and describe it so the results should be consistent (no contradictions should exist). First we choose a referential in the mother-ship pointing in the same direction as the velocity of one of the twins. We must replace x=+vt and x=-vt for each twin in the equations of time. We assume k = (1-v2/c2)exp-1/2 Then for one twin we will have (x=+vt): t' = k(1-v2/c2)t = t/k and for the other (x=-vt): t' = k(1+v2/c2)t We can see that for each twin time t' is different what means they age differently. The first one is smaller what means the first twin will get younger than the other. But the direction of the referential was arbitrary choused with the velocity of one of the twin! If we select the other twin the equations are inverted and that twin will get now older than the other! This means opposite contradictory results. Now we will consider the problem as seen by the twins themselves. they see each other travelling at a velocity w (classicaly is 2v but with the relativistic addition of velocities is something different) chousing the directions of the referentials as the directions of the relative velocity. For them we must consider k = (1-w2/c2)exp-1/2 Then for both twins we will have the same: t' = t/k This means that for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself. This means also opposite contradictory results. We must also note that the rate of aging is different as seen in the mothership than seen by the twins. We must pay attention that they have made a perfect symetrical travel, they accelerated the same amount, they traveled at the same velocity for the same time so there's no privileged direction in the experiment to decide for one of the cases. Then three inconsistences were found because of contradictory results. NOTE: We can also note with some surprise that the results for the mother-ship referential is not the same aging as we would expect in this totally symmetric problem. I wish I was clear.