The perfect problem that shows Relativity INCONSISTENCY.

[martillo]

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.

[the tree]

Both are travelling at some velocity v but in opposite directions just in front of the mother-ship.

Same velocity in different directions? I guess your confusing velocity with speed, playground error if ever there was one.

 

As they are going at the same speed, the thier time will be equidifferent to the motherships time so there is no contradiction.

[insane_alien]

he is right velocity is a vector variable. that means a direction as well as a magnitude.

[swansont]

The value that goes into the Lorentz formula is speed, so it's always positive.

 

 

Another "relativity is wrong" post that is based on a misunderstanding of relativity. What were the odds...

[Sayonara]

Doesn't defining an arbitrary and absolute fixed point mean you aren't using relativity any more?

[the tree]

Another "relativity is wrong" post that is based on a misunderstanding of relativity.

I dissagree, confusing speed with velocity is a misunderstanding of basic mechanics.

[martillo]

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.

[swansont]

I dissagree, confusing speed with velocity is a misunderstanding of basic mechanics.

 

Point conceded.

[martillo]

Sayonara3,

 

Doesn't defining an arbitrary and absolute fixed point mean you aren't using relativity any more?

 

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...).

[Sayonara]

Stars aren't fixed.

 

What do you consider to be the difference between a "fixed" point and an "absolute" point?

[the tree]

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.

In other words your putting a different value into the equation, wich is why it doesn't work for you and does for everyone else.

[CPL.Luke]

results are dependant on frame of reference

 

furthermore the lorentz contraction formula is supposed to just be a correction factor in experiments, it is not a vector quantity

[martillo]

In other words your putting a different value into the equation, wich is why it doesn't work for you and does for everyone else.

 

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.

[martillo]

Sayonara3,

 

What do you consider to be the difference between a "fixed" point and an "absolute" point?

 

 

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.

[CPL.Luke]

each ship will see the other two ships aging slower. this is not inconsistant, because as soon as someone enters the same reference frame of one of the other observers you know that they were in fact the ones moving, and it all sincs up.

[the tree]

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!

Speed is always positive. You cannnot have a negative speed.

[martillo]

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?

[martillo]

Speed is always positive. You cannnot have a negative speed.

 

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

[CPL.Luke]

it doesn't matter if they don't stop. they will all see eachother aging at different rates, it is real its relativity, but if any of them enters into one of the others frames, it will sinc up again

[the tree]

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

You have put in velocities where there are meant to be speeds. That is why it is not working. How much do you want it spelt out?

[swansont]

GIGO

[martillo]

You have put in velocities where there are meant to be speeds. That is why it is not working. How much do you want it spelt out?

 

Lorentz Transforms have in the equations velocities not speeds.

[martillo]

it doesn't matter if they don't stop. they will all see eachother aging at different rates, it is real its relativity, but if any of them enters into one of the others frames, it will sinc up again

 

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

[CPL.Luke]

no there all right, its just that there view point is different, each observers observations of the area around them are equally valid, its time dilation

 

 

and when they say velocity they mean the magnitude of the velocity, as you could not put in velocity even if you wanted to in that equation, what your doing is not putting in velocity even.

[YT2095]

define "really happening"?

 

what they "see" will be dependant on their frame ref, and therefore relative, there IS NO Absolute "Really".