CPL.Luke Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 its also improtant to remember martillo that if a theory works for some simple problem, then it will most definatly work for a larger more complicated version of the same problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 19, 2005 Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 define "really happening"? what they "see" will be dependant on their frame ref, and therefore relative, there IS NO Absolute "Really". 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 defining the mothership as being at rest relative to the stars(which can't happen, because they are all moving relative to each other) doesn't do anything. it will still be moving relative to the other ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 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: 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 well to each of the twins, they see themselves traversing a far shorter distance than the otehr twin saw them travel. Thus there is no contradiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 The distance is not relevant in the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 28, 2005 Author Share Posted August 28, 2005 martillo why dont you just concede that you were wrong. Just because I'm right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 martillo we have showed you that you are wrong because you made anerror in your calculations. Whether it was intentional or not is irrelevant we pointed out the mistake and you dismissed it purely because you have the idea that your calculations are perfect stuck in your head. just listen to us we only want to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 no you have refuted them with flawed logic and flawed math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 OK, if everybody agree with this, I have nothing more to say and I go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 30, 2005 Author Share Posted August 30, 2005 Not yet, may be really interested ones are watching the thread... insane_alien, martillo we have showed you that you are wrong because you made anerror in your calculations. Which is that error I made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Which is that error I made? Post 22 is flat-out wrong, and what is described in post 29 is the standard twin paradox. You can't swing a dead cat (at speeds < c of course) without hitting an explanation of the twin paradox. So the question has to be: where were you right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 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! what is described in post 29 is the standard twin paradox. 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. So the question has to be: where were you right? 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 you know martillo, its very likely that if you created a situation where an accepted theory is wrong that you made the mistake somewhere. thus it is far better to create that goes, where did I screw up and then explain what you did, or a what am I not getting. P.S. didn't you already try and refute relativity on sciforums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Swansont' date=' 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... [/quote'] No, because the term is not a vector. It is a scalar. As such, there is no reason to define the coordinate system that way. 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. I don't see where you mention acceleration at all in that part of post 29, so you are changing the conditions of the problem. As described, it is the standard twin paradox, just with a third observer in a different frame. Nothing particularly difficult about figuring it out. The only problem here is the one you appear to have in understanding relativity. The theory itself isn't the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 also martillo, when the to space ships return to the reference of the mother ship (the third observer) they shall have aged according to how that observer believed they would (same age). if the either one of the twins entered into the others reference frame that they had aged x amount of years less than the other twin. as for while their still in motion, each of their observations of the others frames are perfectly valid because of the time dilation that they view in the others frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 swansont, so you are changing the conditions of the problem. No I'm not. The problem is exactly the same. As described, it is the standard twin paradox, just with a third observer in a different frame. Nothing particularly difficult about figuring it out. As described, it is the standard twin paradox, just with a third observer in a different frame. Nothing particularly difficult about figuring it out. As I said in the presentation of the problem: "Is a new version of the well known twins paradox." The only problem here is the one you appear to have in understanding relativity. The theory itself isn't the issue. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 CPL. Luke, each of their observations of the others frames are perfectly valid because of the time dilation that they view in the others frame. But each one sees a different thing and they are contradictory. Which could be true and which not? All the observations should be consistent and they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 the observations are consistant with relativity. counter-intuitive, yes. wrong, no. it is the twins paradox just with another person flung into the mix. (the triplets paradox? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 insane_alien, the observations are consistant with relativity. counter-intuitive, yes. wrong, no. But they are contradictory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 funny how your the only one to have the wisdom to see a contradiction in relativity... I mean all of those poor fools thinking that they understood something that really is wrong, creating over a hundred years of physics theories that are based off of it....so sad... /sarcasm martillo there is a difference between you not understanding relativity and relativity being contradictory, if you intnd on having a career in physics then you should spend your energy on trying to understand why you keep making mistakes rather than trying to show how a proven theory is wrong. now, as for the rest of this thread you should think of it like this, it doesn't matter if I see you aging slow compared to me and you see me aging slow, what does matter is when you go to check either my perspective will hold true or yours will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted August 31, 2005 Author Share Posted August 31, 2005 CPL. Luke, now, as for the rest of this thread you should think of it like this, it doesn't matter if I see you aging slow compared to me and you see me aging slow It does matte because we are talking about the different predictions of a theory about a physical phenomenon. what does matter is when you go to check either my perspective will hold true or yours will. It is said in the problem that the twins can take photographs of themselves and send them to everybody to see what happens to them. Then it is possible to verify which prediction could be true! Now I will assume for a while that one is verified as the correct prediction, what happened to the other ones, failed??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 no they are both correct until one physicly enters the others frame of reference. it doesn't matter if the two could send pictures to each other. take for instance the case of to parellel wires each with an electrical current running through them. now each electron "sees a higher density of positive charge in the other wire because of length contraction, so the two wires are electrically attracted to each other (magnetism) this case is proof that it doesn't matter if I see you doing something differently than you see you doing something, mostly because of length contraction combined with time dilation. a ship traveling to alpha centauri at .8C will see the 4 ly distance as something drastically smaller than that, something on the order of like .4 ly (no calculation performed just saying it will be smaller). and from the ships perspective it traverses this .4 ly distance at .8C this relates to your problem in that when 1 ship observes events at a time t in the other ship, that other ship will think that time t occured at time 2t or some such. disclaimer: I'm to lasy to do the actual calculations for any of this stuff at the moment, so don't bother checking the math, its wrong, all numbers just used to illustrate a point that its a combination of all these relativistic effects that make relativity work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 But each one sees a different thing and they are contradictory. Which could be true and which not? All the observations should be consistent and they are not. This contradicts your statement that you understood relativity perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts