Martillo talks about the twin paradox

[Emil]

May be you don't know but I think in a totally new Physics' theory which I begun to develop and needs further development. You can find the link to its website in my profile if you want.

martillo, just a question, please
Are you aware if the speed of light is invariant assumption is true then SRT is correct?

 

[martillo]

And how many more people in history have believed they have a correct explanation for something only to be wrong?

There are more laypersons online making claims about science than there are actual scientists! They cannot all be right, many of them, sorry, many of you are inconsistent with one another. If you're right then Farsight is wrong. If Farsight is right then QWC is wrong. If QWC is right then Sylwester is wrong. On and on, each excluding the others.

Besides, I think it's a poor example because the majority of the scientists you're referring to presented detailed working, considered experiments, made predictions. They could, when asked, provide proper coherent explanations and derivations. When I ask the hacks here for details, for derivations of their results, there's usually just silence or an attempt to change the subject.

Hell, its usually worse than that. Almost every hack here peddling a pet idea is demonstrably ignorant of science. None of them, none of you, have access to real experimental data. You don't go get raw data, you just arm wave. For example, you talk about neutrinos and atoms etc. You've never worked with scattering cross section data from accelerators. You've never worked with neutrino telescope data. You've never worked with spectral data from supernovas. You've never worked with the raw data from tests of relativity. So that means you can only rely on what other people have distilled from said data. This is a real problem if you're trying to do away with the models used to distil the data. For example Sylwester says the Standard Model is fundamentally wrong. He then goes on to claim he can accurately predict the value of the strong coupling constant. But he doesn't do it by working with raw data from accelerators, he does it by looking up what physicists have interpreted from accelerator data using the Standard Model!! He denounces the model and then claims he can match something defined by the model!

But it gets even worse. If you don't have experimental data then you need to work with models others have constructed. By that I mean that if someone has confirmed that, for instance, general relativity is able to accurately model GPS network behaviour up to some level of precision and you don't have the raw network data then you can check your own model by comparing to the GR predictions we know to be very accurate. But this requires you understand the GR models. Farsight, Sylwester, you and many others (I'd say all of the pet theory peddling hacks here actually) don't know the mainstream models! Sure, I imagine you can give me a qualitative overview of what GR says about the GPS network (faster clocks go slower, gravitational time dilation etc) but none of you can calculate the precise predictions of the model.

For example, Farsight likes to claim he's a world leading expert in electromagnetism. He cannot model any electromagnetic system and he cannot solve in the most rudimentary of homework problems pertaining to electromagnetism. He, like pretty much all of you, is for all intents and purposes innumerate. And since the language of physics is mathematics you're all essentially illiterate in the language you need to talk in. People like Heaviside might have been considered a fringe guy in physics but he did a hell of a lot to advance the understanding of Maxwell's equations, he formulated them into the way it's currently taught to undergraduates. He put in time and effort, learnt what he needed to in order to present his work properly. You, Farsight, Sylwester, et al, are incapable of doing that even if your ideas weren't nonsense.

So you can tell yourself "I'm going through what some great physicists had to go through" but it's confirmation bias. We hear about such people because they accomplished something, they produced work which stood up to scrutiny. We don't hear of the tens, hundreds, even thousands of times as many people who were also in the same position but whose ideas were ignorant nonsense. You think you're in that tiny tiny group of people who claim they've done great things and actually have. Thus far you and everyone else on this forum with a pet theory have shown that is simply not the case.

Bullshit.

 

[martillo]

That's only true in the "rest" frame. In the "rest" frame, both travelling twins are stopped to begin with, then at the same time they start accelerating at the same rate until they reach the same speed, only in opposite directions. So in the "rest" frame they start synchronised and they remain synchronised all the time and they're the same age when they cross over.

Your argument does not work in the travelling twins' frames because there is no such symmetry there: the way the left twin describes himself is not the same as the way he describes the right twin in his frame. There is no symmetry in that sense.

There is only symmetry in the sense that the way the left twin describes the right twin is the same as the way the right twin describes the left twin. For example, just after the left twin accelerates, he might say that his clock still reads $$t_{\mathrm{L}} = 0$$ while the right twin's clock reads $$t_{\mathrm{R}} = T$$. The right twin would say the same thing in reverse: after he has just accelerated, he would say his clock still reads $$t_{\mathrm{R}} = 0$$ while the left twin's clock reads $$t_{\mathrm{L}} = T$$. That is the only way in which the left and right twin's descriptions of things are symmetric.




I just told you: simultaneity is frame dependent in relativity. When e.g. the left twin compares his clock with the right twin, he's considering what time the right twin's clock reads "at the same time" as his own clock reads something. The de-synchronisation comes from the fact that, after they've accelerated, the left and right twins don't agree on what "at the same time" means any more.

Well, all I can say is that I disagree. If both twins and clocks are affected by the same physical effects they will present exactly the same behavior. The clocks cannot present different readings anyway.

 

[martillo]

martillo, just a question, please
Are you aware if the speed of light is invariant assumption is true then SRT is correct?

Yes I am. In my theory the classical Emission Theory or Ballistic Theory of light is valid (light velocity not invariant, dependent on the source velocity). If Relativity is wrong the unique theory that could be compatible with Nichelson-Morley experimet is that theory. I talk about that in the book and its website. You can see it if you want to take a look: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics
I have found that the argued experiments measuring light velocity not dependent on the source velocity are actually all questionable in the interpretation of the results.

 

[Neverfly]

Well, all I can say is that I disagree. If both twins and clocks are affected by the same physical effects they will present exactly the same behavior. The clocks cannot present different readings anyway.

I wonder how many people go to University and then say this to their professor. It's like- Do you want to learn or make it up as you go along?

"I'm sorry, I reject your mathematics and substitute my own."

 

[Tach]

You can see it if you want to take a look: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics

Shameless advertising of bunk, crank theories. All chapters, without exception, are hilarious. How many "books" did you sell, Alejandro?

 

[martillo]

Shameless advertising of bunk, crank theories. All chapters, without exception, are hilarious. How many "books" did you sell, Alejandro?

Just a few were purchased for now. Why you ask this? May be the real success would come in some future, may be even a far future, may be even after my death, I don't care.

 

[Syne]

May be you don't know but I think in a totally new Physics' theory which I begun to develop and needs further development. You can find the link to its website in my profile if you want.

There is nothing "new" about claiming an absolute reference frame. It was refuted over 100 years ago.

 

[martillo]

There is nothing "new" about claiming an absolute reference frame. It was refuted over 100 years ago.

Well, as I say at the main page of the website:
"Classical Physics is coming back, "reloaded". With some corrections, some new laws and the right structures for the elementary particles it really works now."

 

[Tach]

Just a few were purchased for now. Why you ask this? May be the real success would come in some future, may be even a far future, may be even after my death, I don't care.

The reality is that it will NEVER come since what you write is pure bunk.

 

[martillo]

The reality is that it will NEVER come since what you write is pure bunk.

That is your opinion and your decision...

For me "bunk" would be for instance to assume inexistent "dark matter", "dark energy", etc trying to accomodate real disagreeing observations to current wrong theories in Physics.

 

[Syne]

Well, as I say at the main page of the website:
"Classical Physics is coming back, "reloaded". With some corrections, some new laws and the right structures for the elementary particles it really works now."

Just like I said:

"And you should notice that none of these notable physicists were trying to revive older, already refuted theories. That is a crucial difference that hacks never see. "

It also explains a lot about why you seem relativity illiterate.

 

[Tach]

That is your opinion and your decision...

For me "bunk" would be for instance to assume inexistent "dark matter", "dark energy", etc trying to accomodate real disagreeing observations to current wrong theories in Physics.

Whatever you suffer from, ain't curable.

 

[Janus58]

ok so i cant control it the way i want. But you have been repeatedly been posting on why the twin pardox is false. It could be, but today i want to hear the mainstream explanation.

So okay, let's try a new approach. We'll start with a simple space-time diagram:

This diagram shows events according to the frame of the stay at home brother and here we assume that the traveling brothers' speed is 0.6c.

The red line represents the stay at home brother. The little circles mark off yrs. the other lines represent the outbound and inbound legs of the other brothers. If you want to know what time it is on one of the traveling brother's clock as seen by the stay at home brother, just read straight across. Thus when 3 yrs have passed for the stay at home brother, something between 2 and 3 have passed for the other 2. When at 5 years, the brothers have reached the turnaround point of their trip and it is 4 yrs for them. When the brothers meet up again, 10yrs has passed for the stay at home twin and 8 for his brother.


Now let's consider thing from the frame of one of the traveling twins on his outbound leg:

The lighter blue line represents him. Note that both the stay at home and other traveling brother are undergoing time dilation, with the other traveling brother undergoing more because he has a greater relative speed. ( When 3 yrs has passed for this twin something between 2 and 3 have past for the stay at home twin and only somewhere between 1 and 2 has passed for the other brother.

Also note that when he reaches the end of this leg, and his clock reads 4 yrs, its is just a little past 3 yrs for the stay at home twin and still not quite 2 years for the other brother. But most important. note that the other traveling twin has not reached his turn around point yet.

Now let's see what happens at the return leg:

The Cyan line is this leg.

It is still 4 yrs by his clock at the turnaround point, but note what has happened to the times for the other two brothers. It is now almost 7yrs for the stay at home twin and a little past 6 yrs for the other traveling twin. This is due to the Relativity of Simultaneity effect I mentioned earlier and what happens when you shift between inertial frames. Both of his other brother's clocks accumulate time more slowly than his does, and when they meet up again we get the same result as we got in the first diagram. 8 yrs passing for the traveling brothers and 10yrs for the stay at home twin.

Now you may have noticed that this diagram is like a mirror image of the last one. There is a reason for this. It is because first diagram for the inertial frame of one twin's outbound trip is the same diagram as the one for the return trip of his other traveling brother. IOW, the outbound trip of one traveler is the same inertial frame at the return trip for the other traveler so you only need these three diagrams to describe all the legs for the three brothers.

I hope this helps some.

 

[martillo]

Just like I said:

"And you should notice that none of these notable physicists were trying to revive older, already refuted theories. That is a crucial difference that hacks never see. "

It also explains a lot about why you seem relativity illiterate.

Classical Physics has a restricted "dominium" of applicability but is a valid theory. Whit the proposed improvements it can extend that "dominium" to cover the areas currently covered by Relatity, Quantum Physics and the subatomic Standard Model theories (of course some corrections and extensions are needed) actually becoming a totally new theory as I said. See the difference?
How it could be possible? Well, as I mentioned, with some corrections, some new laws and the right structures for the elementary particles it can be possible.
To try it or not just relies on everyone's decision.
It needs further developments, as I said, and otherones can and must participate in its development. I just gave what I think is a good start-point.
I'm not asking to completely believe in me, I'm asking for physicists to analyze properly the done work and develop it further if found worthing. Of course some time would be needed for evaluation something I know is not so easy to find...

I cannot talk more about it because that belongs to the "Alternatives Theories" forum, I know.

 

[Emil]

There is nothing "new" about claiming an absolute reference frame. It was refuted over 100 years ago.

Nop.
This is something new.

In my theory the classical Emission Theory or Ballistic Theory of light is valid (light velocity not invariant, dependent on the source velocity). If Relativity is wrong the unique theory that could be compatible with Nichelson-Morley experimet is that theory.

When you're ready, in another topic, I'm curious about your opinion about light property.

 

[martillo]

When you're ready, in another topic, I'm curious about your opinion about light property.

At the website (mod note: removed) you can find light as composed by particles (photons), the structure given for them and how this explain diffraction and refraction, denying the concept of light as an "electromagnetic wave" in favour of the concept of "electromagnetic particle" in chapter seven, among chapter eight dedicated to issues about the Emission (Ballistic) Theory of light.
If you have more specific questions you can open a thread in the Alternatives Theories forum for that or e-mail me your questions (mod note: removed).
You can find the link to the website in my profile (in the "About Me"/interests section) and at the end of the main page of it an e-mail for direct contact.
Case you open a new thread which will be its title?

 

[przyk]

Well, all I can say is that I disagree. If both twins and clocks are affected by the same physical effects they will present exactly the same behavior.

No, they don't. This is not a matter of opinion, martillo. Not only is your reasoning wrong, but what relativity predicts specifically contradicts what you are saying: the twins' clocks simply do not read the same times in their own frames, and there is absolutely no reason that they should.

Besides, the clock readings aren't the only things that are different in the travelling twins' frames. According to each twin, he's stationary in his own frame while the other is moving. Each twin also sees the other Doppler shifted while he doesn't consider himself Doppler shifted. Like I said, each travelling twin does not describe himself the same way he describes his other twin. The twins' description of events in their own frames is not symmetric between the twins, so your argument is completely invalid.

The clocks cannot present different readings anyway.

This is starting to look like simple denial here. In relativity they can and they do: what I've been describing is inevitable in relativity due to the relativity of simultaneity effect. Not only that but the way the clocks become de-synchronised during the twins' accelerations would nowadays be considered an example of gravitational time dilation, as Janus58 explained in [POST=2998843]post #130[/POST]. As long as you keep ignoring this, you are attacking a theory of your own invention that is most definitely not the theory of relativity.

 

[martillo]

No, they don't. This is not a matter of opinion, martillo. Not only is your reasoning wrong, but what relativity predicts specifically contradicts what you are saying: the twins' clocks simply do not read the same times in their own frames, and there is absolutely no reason that they should.

Besides, the clock readings aren't the only things that are different in the travelling twins' frames. According to each twin, he's stationary in his own frame while the other is moving. Each twin also sees the other Doppler shifted while he doesn't consider himself Doppler shifted. Like I said, each travelling twin does not describe himself the same way he describes his other twin. The twins' description of events in their own frames is not symmetric between the twins, so your argument is completely invalid.




This is starting to look like simple denial here. In relativity they can and they do: what I've been describing is inevitable in relativity due to the relativity of simultaneity effect. Not only that but the way the clocks become de-synchronised during the twins' accelerations would nowadays be considered an example of gravitational time dilation, as Janus58 explained in [POST=2998843]post #130[/POST]. As long as you keep ignoring this, you are attacking a theory of your own invention that is most definitely not the theory of relativity.

As you said that's what Relativity Theory predicts but what if Relativity is wrong? I know is difficult to you to consider this...
In a totally perfect symmetrical travel both twins and their clocks are affected by exactly the same physical effects and so must exhibit exactly the same look, behavior and readings. The nature of the problem demands that. How many times would I repeat this? How can't you understand the point? I don't know how would I explain it better to you.

 

[Tach]

As you said that's what Relativity Theory predicts but what if Relativity is wrong? I know is difficult to you to consider this...
In a totally perfect symmetrical travel both twins and their clocks are affected by exactly the same physical effects and so must exhibit exactly the same look, behavior and readings. The nature of the problem demands that. How many times would I repeat this? How can't you understand the point? I don't know how would I explain it better to you.

That too, was explained to you as not being a paradox , in post 113.