Martillo talks about the twin paradox

[martillo]

apologies if this has been posted before.

There are two twins, Dick and Mick. Then there's their idiot younger brother Tom.


Dick and Mick get into identical rocketships. In Tom's "rest" frame, they both jet off at the same time, travel the same distance in opposite directions, then return at the same time. the paths taken are linear.

So to tom, both would have experienced equal time dilation.

However, wouldnt Dick and Mick see their other two siblings as having experienced time dilation instead? How do we answer this paradox?

I suggest to introduce another little variant yet to have a really interesting problem.
Let consider that at the end they meet again at a crossing point but they do not reunite. Let assume they would not stop and they would continue travelling at some constant relativistic velocity but at the croosing point the observations in the three reference frames are compared. Each one can take a photograph of himself at the crossing instant and send it to the otherones to see how each one has aged. For example how long is the beard of each one at that time (assuming they didn't cut it, of course).
The point is not to choose which frame of observation would be choosed to get the best result. The point is to get the observations in the three frames and compare them. The observations cannot be contradictory. Afterall the same phenomenon is observed just by different frames of observation.
To simplify the problem I think it can be considered that when the two twins travels away and stop to turn back is an instant when all the clocks are re-synchronized since at that instant all are at rest in relation to the others. Then just the travel back to the crossing point matters.
It must be assumed that both twins acquire a relativistic velocity in a small time compared with the trip and always have perfectly symmetrical velocities.
In each frame of observation the relativistic predictions of the state of the three guys must be made and compared. There should be no contradictory results between them.
I think all them contradict the others:
_ Each twin would see the other twin aged less (they would see themselves with a long beard and the other without it) what is contradictory.
_The guy "at rest" would see both twins aging the same (let say with a half beard) what contradicts the observations above.

As a comment on the accelerations needed to acquire relativistic velocities I think they don't play a fundamental role in the problem since the Lorentz Transforms just depend on the velocities. Einstein postulated his famous problem of the train at a relativistic velocity without any mention on the needed acceleration to reach it.

I must say at this point that this problem is presented in detail as a consideration against Relativity Theory at http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics although is not available online for now.

 

[Tach]

In each frame of observation the relativistic predictions of the state of the three guys must be made and compared. There should be no contradictory results between them.

There aren't. Only anti-relativistic crackpots like you claim that there are.

I think all them contradict the others:
_ Each twin would see the other twin aged less (they would see themselves with a long beard and the other without it) what is contradictory.

This is false, they age the same. A detailed answer , contradicting your claims, has been given in another thread.

_The guy "at rest" would see both twins aging the same (let say with a half beard) what contradicts the observations above.

The observer in the inertial frame sees them aging the same. Meaning that your first claim is false.

I must say at this point that this problem is presented in detail as a consideration against Relativity Theory at http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics although is not available online for now.

This is a shameless plug for your crank "book".

 

[martillo]

Posted by tach:

Posted by martillo:
I think all them contradict the others:
_ Each twin would see the other twin aged less (they would see themselves with a long beard and the other without it) what is contradictory.

This is false, they age the same. A detailed answer , contradicting your claims, has been given in another thread.

Sorry but I think the calculation you point out does not apply in the problem I mention. In this problem is considered a frame for each twin where he is always "at rest" while the other is always moving at some velocity so the relativistic predictions in their own frames are that the other twin age less (the other clock running slower) particularly in the problem I mentioned where they do not stop to reunit but just pass through a crossing point. If they were to reunit their clocks would at the end show the same total elapsed time because they came back to a same frame (Lorentz Transform shows that) but this doesn't happen if they just pass through a crossing point where observations are interchanged (by some communication) and compared.

By the way if I'm an anti-relativistic crackpot you are a relativistic parrot that don't see what you don't want to see.

 

[martillo]

This is a shameless plug for your crank "book".

I posted about this problem in forums long time ago (2005) when nobody was discussing it at the internet. I thought it on my own and I think I could be one of the first thinking in it. I has nothing to ashame about.

 

[Janus58]

Sorry but I think the calculation you point out does not apply in the problem I mention. In this problem is considered a frame for each twin where he is always "at rest" while the other is always moving at some velocity so the relativistic predictions in their own frames are that the other twin age less (the other clock running slower) particularly in the problem I mentioned where they do not stop to reunit but just pass through a crossing point. If they were to reunit their clocks would at the end show the same total elapsed time because they came back to a same frame (Lorentz Transform shows that) but this doesn't happen if they just pass through a crossing point where observations are interchanged (by some communication) and compared.

Whether or not they all join the same rest frame upon meeting or not makes no difference on what each frame sees at the moment that they cross paths. It would only effect what they saw after that point. If they are all in the same frame after then they will now just age at the same rate maintaining their respective age differences. If they continue on in their paths, their aging rates will continue to differ. However, all frames will agree to their respective ages at the point of their paths crossing. You can even keep repeating this, with them turning around repeatedly to cross paths time and time again, and every time they pass, they all will agree as to which one had aged more and by how much.

 

[przyk]

I suggest to introduce another little variant yet to have a really interesting problem.

I worked out almost exactly what you're describing [POST=1378669]here[/POST]. Basically, the twin paradox is resolved by accounting for the relativity of simultaneity effect. That's what makes reciprocal time dilation factors possible in relativity in the first place.

You can explicitly work out what happens in non-intertial reference frames if you want, but it isn't very illuminating. Ultimately there's no paradox because what happens in non-inertial frames is derived from what happens in inertial frames, so you always get the same result by definition. In the case of accelerating frames you end up deriving gravitational time dilation this way.

To simplify the problem I think it can be considered that when the two twins travels away and stop to turn back is an instant when all the clocks are re-synchronized since at that instant all are at rest in relation to the others. Then just the travel back to the crossing point matters.

This dances around the fact that simultaneity and synchronisation are frame-dependent in relativity. They can synchronise their clocks when they're all at rest relative to one another, but they won't consider their clocks still synchronised when they accelerate to different velocities.

As a comment on the accelerations needed to acquire relativistic velocities I think they don't play a fundamental role in the problem since the Lorentz Transforms just depend on the velocities.

They depend on velocities relative to an inertial frame. So if a twin accelerates relative to an inertial standard, the velocity changes. That matters.

 

[martillo]

I know by experience I will never find agreement with the majority of the users and administrators of the forum. I just wanted to agree with eram, the creator of the thread and may be others that could be interested, with his point of view in the presented variation on the problem and to show him there's another variation that can be introduced that I think could help more in the approach. I apologize because is not really my aim to discuss about the problem too much.

 

[eram]

I know by experience I will never find agreement with the majority of the users and administrators of the forum. I just wanted to agree with eram, the creator of the thread and may be others that could be interested, with his point of view in the presented variation on the problem and to show him there's another variation that can be introduced that I think could help more in the approach.

nah, I don't even have a definite opinion in the first place.

and don't complicate things. Stick to my version with Mick, Dick and Nick. Sounds like a triplet paradox.

 

[Tach]

I posted about this problem in forums long time ago (2005) when nobody was discussing it at the internet. I thought it on my own and I think I could be one of the first thinking in it. I has nothing to ashame about.

But your "book" is just a collection of your basic misunderstandings about relativity.

 

[martillo]

But your "book" is just a collection of your basic misunderstandings about relativity.

The book (90% available at the website) is dedicated to describe and solve problems for a totally new physics theory about the elementary particles and forces of the universe. Just one section (section 1.1), which would represent 1% of the book, talks briefly about considerations against Relativity Theory because the new theory is not compatible with it. I doubt now if it was really good to include that section in the book because of the lot of time wasted in discussing about it and not about the new theory itself...
I apologize because I know this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but I couldn't avoid commenting something about that tach's posting about my book.

 

[Tach]

The book (90% available at the website)

...and 100% crackpot.

is dedicated to describe and solve problems for a totally new physics theory about the elementary particles and forces of the universe.

LOL.

 

[martillo]

...and 100% crackpot.

LOL.

It's your opinion and your decision...

 

[martillo]

when i said "we should stay on topic" i was referring to the bickering cranks and other forum users.

I'm sorry. I couldn't imagine your intention was to hear only how mainstream pretend to solve your twin's paradox. I thought you could also have interest in the "dissident" ("crank", "crackpot" or whatever) approach for which the problem actually has no solution at all because it is a real contradiction in Relativity.
I apologize for this. Sure I'll post nothing else at all.

 

[eram]

well, if you hold "crackpot" views then discussing the twin paradox is pointless.

At the same time, the mainstream response doesn't seem to be very clear.

 

[Tach]

At the same time, the mainstream response doesn't seem to be very clear.

Huh? The fact that you are incapable of following the math doesn't mean that the answer isn't clear.

 

[Tach]

I thought you could also have interest in the "dissident" ("crank", "crackpot" or whatever) approach for which the problem actually has no solution at all because it is a real contradiction in Relativity.

I agree, there is "no solution" for cranks like you.

 

[martillo]

well, if you hold "crackpot" views then discussing the twin paradox is pointless.

"Crackpot" from whom's perspective? The mainstream followers? What else could you expect...
I supposed you were a bit smarter.
Waste of time.

 

[Tach]

"Crackpot" from whom's perspective? The mainstream followers?

Disagreeing with mainstream is precisely what makes you a crank. So, you got one right.

 

[Neverfly]

Huh? The fact that you are incapable of following the math doesn't mean that the answer isn't clear.

Tach. You're very rude.
And mean.
You're obviously a bad man. I'm fairly certain that kittens tremble in fear around you.
Now, Martillo...:

I'm sorry. I couldn't imagine your intention was to hear only how mainstream pretend to solve your twin's paradox. I thought you could also have interest in the "dissident" ("crank", "crackpot" or whatever) approach for which the problem actually has no solution at all because it is a real contradiction in Relativity.
I apologize for this. Sure I'll post nothing else at all.

Martillo. You are polite. A bit sarcastic... But that may be expected from an innocent victim of the mean Mainstream jerks that won't give a straight answer.

Right?

There's just one thing... It's small, but it has me confused. I understand that you say there is a real contradiction with Relativity. I get that and I'm sure that a smart, upstanding citizen such as yourself is saying this with absolute honesty.
But I'm still stumped.

How come I understand Relativity and see that there is no paradox? How is this possible?
By rights, what you say should hold and Tach should just be a jerk. So why is it that when I examine the problem... I see the effect of the whole? Why is it that there is no paradox?
And there are plenty others.

Here's the real problem. You not only do not understand Relativity, you refuse to believe that you do not. In your arrogant defiance, you seek to discredit real people simply because you cannot let go of basic misunderstanding.
You would prefer to let others, readers and laymen who are not sure, who haven't studied Relativity, believe that scientists as a whole are deceptive, lying to the public and trying to support a whim.
My question to you is, "Why?"
Why is that preferable to you than admitting your error?
Why would you rather convince people that science is flawed, that it can be like faith or religion, that it cannot be trusted?
I think I know why. It is because you, Martillo, are a douche. There is no other logical explanation. You are totally ok with holding scientific progress back rather than admit to a flaw in your reasoning. It is ok to you, to convince as many voters as possible that the mainstream scientific community is untrustworthy, rude and condescending and that they don't know what they are doing. The more people that believe people like you, the more people that will be unsupportive of scientific progress and advancement. You are totally ok with trampling other peoples integrity so that you can show none. I cannot think of a descriptive that matches that behavior better; You are a douche.

And people like Tach and Prometheus, Alphanumeric, Origin, Read Only, Billvon, JamesR, Rpenner and so on get tired of getting soaked in douchedom from people like You. They get a little short. They get tired of repeating themselves year after year. Dispelling the myths, refuting the bad math, explaining the process, demonstrating the lack of any paradox. They get tired of it and that is when you do the most douch-thing of them all- You play on that by making it appear that they have no real response to your hogwash except to unfairly call you a "crank."

Well, I will not call you a crank, Sir. I wouldn't stoop so low. I'm not a jerk like Tach. I will call you a douche, instead.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just do the math, see the explanation and admit to not having understood the issue?


Mods: I went overboard and threw a long Ad Hom attack. I don't deny it.

 

[Tach]

Tach. You're very rude.
And mean.
You're obviously a bad man. I'm fairly certain that kittens tremble in fear around you.

And people like Tach and Prometheus, Alphanumeric, Origin, Read Only, Billvon, JamesR, Rpenner and so on get tired of getting soaked in douchedom from people like You. They get a little short. They get tired of repeating themselves year after year. Dispelling the myths, refuting the bad math, explaining the process, demonstrating the lack of any paradox. They get tired of it and that is when you do the most douch-thing of them all- You play on that by making it appear that they have no real response to your hogwash except to unfairly call you a "crank."

Well, I will not call you a crank, Sir. I wouldn't stoop so low. I'm not a jerk like Tach. I will call you a douche, instead.