Martillo talks about the twin paradox

[martillo]

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

That's not the paradox. The paradox surges when comparing the relativistic predictions of each twin/frame for their observation of the other twin/frame.
But you agree that in the problem the clocks of both travelling twins in their own frames have exactly the same readings of time, isn't it? Well, przyk says that they don't, that they come desynchronized after the acceleration stage. He don't understand that because of the nature of the perfect symmetrical travel they must present exactly the same reading at any instant of their symmetrical position. How can't he get it?
May be there's a confusion between what each twin sees on their own frame and the relativistic prediction of the observation of each twin for the other twin...
Can it be here the confusion przyk?

 

[przyk]

That is your opinion and your decision...

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

I think it's a bit disingenuous for you to criticise mainstream physics when it is demonstrably far more successful at explaining observations than anything you have. The situation with mainstream physics right now is that we have been doing experimental physics for around 400 years, and the vast majority of what we observe is readily explained, quantitatively, using the theories we already have. There are only a handful of unexplained observations, and even there it's usually a matter of us worrying about which of a number of possible explanations is the correct one (e.g. there are two or three different ways we could give neutrinos masses in the Standard Model, and it's undetermined which way we should do it). With you it's the opposite: you can (sort of) explain a few results, and even there usually in much less detail than mainstream models do, and you don't even touch on the vast majority of results we have available to us. Trying to explain the double slit experiment, for example, isn't very impressive in a day and age where we're building quantum cryptography systems and starting to toy around with quantum computers.

Like I've told you before, I actually know people doing experimental quantum optics, and nothing on your website would be of any use to them because your impression of quantum physics is superficial and 80-90 years out of date, and you're not even aware that what they're doing exists as a research field. Personally I'm working mostly on QKD at the moment. How does anything in your book or on your website help me calculate QKD security bounds? We don't just put modern theories on a shelf and admire them and think they look pretty, you know. In many cases the theories you are saying we should just throw out have real industrial applications and you have no alternative for them.

 

[przyk]

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.

martillo, I understand your argument just fine and it is wrong, and no amount of repeating it will change that. The sequence of events in either of the travelling twins' frames is not symmetric. This is obvious because each twin describes himself as being at rest in his own frame, while he describes the other twin as experiencing very rapid coordinate acceleration and motion. There is symmetry between the twins' frames, but not within each frame. The flaw in your argument is your failure to make this distinction.

You don't even seem to realise that your argument could just as well be used to "disprove" classical physics. Why? Because according to classical physics, each twin would see himself normally while he would see the other Doppler shifted. Yet according to you that shouldn't happen because of "symmetry" and because both twins are affected by "exactly the same physical effects", so they should both have the same Doppler shifts. So why does each twin see the other Doppler shifted, but not himself?

 

[Tach]

That's not the paradox. The paradox surges when comparing the relativistic predictions of each twin/frame for their observation of the other twin/frame.
But you agree that in the problem the clocks of both travelling twins in their own frames have exactly the same readings of time, isn't it? Well, przyk says that they don't, that they come desynchronized after the acceleration stage.

They become desynchronized wrt the INERTIAL twin, you doofoos. If their acceleration profiles are identical, the ACCELERATED twins will show the same exact elapsed time. This is the principle of "slow clock transport synchronization method". How many times do you need to have the same thing explained to you?

May be there's a confusion between what each twin sees on their own frame and the relativistic prediction of the observation of each twin for the other twin...
Can it be here the confusion przyk?

There isn't any confusion. The only confusion is in your brain.And there is plenty of that.

 

[Aqueous Id]

As you said that's what Relativity Theory predicts but what if Relativity is wrong?

In that case you could not geolocate using the current TDOA method incorporated into GPS.

You need only learn how this works to debunk the reasoning that would question its correctness.

 

[martillo]

I think it's a bit disingenuous for you to criticise mainstream physics when it is demonstrably far more successful at explaining observations than anything you have. The situation with mainstream physics right now is that we have been doing experimental physics for around 400 years, and the vast majority of what we observe is readily explained, quantitatively, using the theories we already have. There are only a handful of unexplained observations, and even there it's usually a matter of us worrying about which of a number of possible explanations is the correct one (e.g. there are two or three different ways we could give neutrinos masses in the Standard Model, and it's undetermined which way we should do it). With you it's the opposite: you can (sort of) explain a few results, and even there usually in much less detail than mainstream models do, and you don't even touch on the vast majority of results we have available to us. Trying to explain the double slit experiment, for example, isn't very impressive in a day and age where we're building quantum cryptography systems and starting to toy around with quantum computers.

Like I've told you before, I actually know people doing experimental quantum optics, and nothing on your website would be of any use to them because your impression of quantum physics is superficial and 80-90 years out of date, and you're not even aware that what they're doing exists as a research field. Personally I'm working mostly on QKD at the moment. How does anything in your book or on your website help me calculate QKD security bounds? We don't just put modern theories on a shelf and admire them and think they look pretty, you know. In many cases the theories you are saying we should just throw out have real industrial applications and you have no alternative for them.

First of all I placed a post right before you posted this, please take a look.

I have presented only a start-point for a new theory, it must be developed further. Of course I cannot cover the total huge fieds of Physics existing and being developed nowadays, it goes beyond my expertisse and it can insume too much time. You cannot say, evenjust by a first on the theory, it cannot offer an explanation or prediction in things I didn't covered and needs the work of otherones with other expertisses to research and develop. I can say that I have found many of new interpretations possible with the new theory for the things I could cover and that allows me think the theory could also give new interpretations for the things you are thinking about. You can't deny this possibility while the theory is in a development stage. May be you feel that but you actually don't know what the theory can give if developed further.
To give some examples I could give new explanations for electrons' diffraction, electron-positron pair creation/annihilation, spins of particles, the "quantum tunneling" effect, basic particles and atoms' structures, prediction of subatomic of high energy physics' particles, not to mention alternative interpretations for all the main relativistic effects (mercury precession, bending of light, "time dilation",...) and for important experiments like Sagnac, Feynman double slit, Hertz, Fizeau,... (there's even more...).
Doesn't this allows to consider just the possibility the new theory could in principle give good results in other unconsidered fields like you mention? I think it does. You cannot throw it away so too easily...

 

[martillo]

They become desynchronized wrt the INERTIAL twin, you doofoos. If their acceleration profiles are identical, the ACCELERATED twins will show the same exact elapsed time. This is the principle of "slow clock transport synchronization method". How many times do you need to have the same thing explained to you?

Well, it's not me you must explain that, I have no problem with that, I agree that in their own frames both twins reads exactly the same time at any point of the travel. Explain that to przyk who disagrees on it.
As I said the paradox arises with the relatvistic predictions (or observations) of each twin but on the other twin/frame what is given by Lorentz transforms in different frames of reference ("K" frames) for each twin at a time.

 

[martillo]

martillo, I understand your argument just fine and it is wrong, and no amount of repeating it will change that. The sequence of events in either of the travelling twins' frames is not symmetric. This is obvious because each twin describes himself as being at rest in his own frame, while he describes the other twin as experiencing very rapid coordinate acceleration and motion. There is symmetry between the twins' frames, but not within each frame. The flaw in your argument is your failure to make this distinction.

You don't even seem to realise that your argument could just as well be used to "disprove" classical physics. Why? Because according to classical physics, each twin would see himself normally while he would see the other Doppler shifted. Yet according to you that shouldn't happen because of "symmetry" and because both twins are affected by "exactly the same physical effects", so they should both have the same Doppler shifts. So why does each twin see the other Doppler shifted, but not himself?

I give up trying to explain the thing to you and may be to the otherones too. We have discussed too much, you continue showing not getting properly the point and I don't know what to say to be understood anymore.

 

[przyk]

I give up trying to explain the thing to you and may be to the otherones too. We have discussed too much, you continue showing not getting properly the point and I don't know what to say to be understood anymore.

What? martillo, I haven't ignored your argument, I have specifically refuted it several times now: I've explained that the situation within each travelling twin's frame is not symmetric, and I have explained what symmetry does impose between the frames that relativity does in fact satisfy. You have not responded to that. You are simply repeating a flawed argument over and over again long after it has been shown wrong. Of course nobody is going to be impressed with that. Don't blame me when you are the one failing to respond to criticism of your argument.

 

[Tach]

As I said the paradox arises with the relatvistic predictions (or observations) of each twin but on the other twin/frame what is given by Lorentz transforms in different frames of reference ("K" frames) for each twin at a time.

You are lying about this as well, in post 89 I already explained to you why there is no paradox when you look from the POV of the accelerated twin. You are not only an idiot but also a pathological liar as well.

 

[przyk]

Doesn't this allows to consider just the possibility the new theory could in principle give good results in other unconsidered fields like you mention? I think it does. You cannot throw it away so too easily...

*sigh*

I have been over this with you before and the reality is that what you have is not remotely impressive. It isn't even well motivated, since you don't understand the mainstream physics you object to and are trying to replace. There are many "alternative physicists" on the internet out there just like you, who are generally doing no better or worse than you, and there is no reason we should pick you out and give you special attention over any of the others.

I could go on about why what you have isn't impressive, but it is easier just to put it this way: I am a physicist, and I know physicists, and I know what they will expect from anyone claiming to have a new theory or even a contribution to physics of any kind, and the standard we expect is not on your website. You've seen that so far: you are the only person who is impressed with yourself. Inventing an explanation for one or two experiments, when mainstream physics explains thousands of them, is simply never going to impress anyone. The non negotiable standard is that you have to either:

• quantitatively explain the results of all relevant experiments that have ever been done, showing that you get the right numerical predictions in every case within the margin for experimental error, or
• advance your theory to the point that you can mathematically recover mainstream theories as an approximation (this is the way any sane physicist would try to do it).

If you don't do this, I guarantee you no physicists will pay any attention to you. If you don't believe me, well, you can continue to just have faith in yourself and see where that gets you in five, ten, or twenty years. You may get a few more book sales out of an unsuspecting public, but that's about the best you can expect. Just remember that physicists have seen and forgotten countless "alternative" theorists just like you over the decades and centuries, and if you're hoping to stand out among them you are really going to have to work for it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I give up trying to explain the thing to you and may be to the otherones too. We have discussed too much, you continue showing not getting properly the point and I don't know what to say to be understood anymore.

If you were correct, then GPS would work without a relativistic correction. But GPS works, only with the correction. Therefore you are incorrect.

There is no alternative.

Isn't that a simpler dialogue than the one you are pursuing?

 

[martillo]

What? martillo, I haven't ignored your argument, I have specifically refuted it several times now: I've explained that the situation within each travelling twin's frame is not symmetric, and I have explained what symmetry does impose between the frames that relativity does in fact satisfy. You have not responded to that.

Yes I responded. I said that due to the nature of the perfectly symmetrical travles of the twins the situation of the twins is exactly the same at ny point of the travels but you don't understand or refuse to accept it.

You are simply repeating a flawed argument over and over again long after it has been shown wrong. Of course nobody is going to be impressed with that. Don't blame me when you are the one failing to respond to criticism of your argument.

Y tried to respond the best way I could but it seems useless...
Is not a flawed argument, is the right argument, the keypoint of the twins' paradox but you don't get it.
If I'm failing to respond is because I don't know what to say anymore because seems you just don't understand what I'm saying.

 

[Janus58]

They become desynchronized wrt the INERTIAL twin, you doofoos. If their acceleration profiles are identical, the ACCELERATED twins will show the same exact elapsed time. This is the principle of "slow clock transport synchronization method". How many times do you need to have the same thing explained to you?

Just to clarify here. As long as we talking about the total elapsed time from initial separation to all three meeting up again, then we have the situation where the two traveling twin will show the same elapsed time. However, this is not true at any other point of the trip when measured from the frame of either of the traveling twins. As I've stated before and as shown by the space-time diagrams shown, For any one of the traveling twins, elapsed time for the other traveling twin will go from starting out as the same as his own, to being less than his own(and losing ground) to being more than his own due the switch of inertial frame (but losing ground from then on), to once again equaling his own.

 

[martillo]

You are lying about this as well, in post 89 I already explained to you why there is no paradox when you look from the POV of the accelerated twin. You are not only an idiot but also a pathological liar as well.

I already shown in post #132 how your post#89 is flawed.

 

[Tach]

Just to clarify here. As long as we talking about the total elapsed time from initial separation to all three meeting up again, then we have the situation where the two traveling twin will show the same elapsed time.

This is precisely martillo's "symmetric twin" case. So, this is what we've been talking about.

However, this is not true at any other point of the trip when measured from the frame of either of the traveling twins. As I've stated before and as shown by the space-time diagrams shown, For any one of the traveling twins, elapsed time for the other traveling twin will go from starting out as the same as his own, to being less than his own(and losing ground) to being more than his own due the switch of inertial frame (but losing ground from then on), to once again equaling his own.

Agreed, you are showing this very nicely with your Minkowski diagrams. I think several people tried to explain to martillo the effects of relativity of simultaneity. The guy is like he has cement for brains.

 

[Tach]

I already shown in post #132 how your post#89 is flawed.

And post 137 shows why you are an idiot, there is no such thing as a Lorentz Transform between an inertial and a non inertial frame, Lorentz transforms apply only to inertial frames. The proof I showed you in post 89, contrary to your crank claims, does not employ any Lorentz transforms. You are creating your own strawman version of SR and you are trying to beat it to death. Classical crackpot.

 

[eram]

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

Perhaps he eats bunnies for breakfast.

Martillo, that may be expected from an innocent victim of the mean Mainstream jerks that won't give a straight answer.

Hmmm. Though I have received a fair bit of not-so-straightforward replies.

You not only do not understand Relativity, you refuse to believe that you do not.

In your arrogant defiance, you .......would prefer to...... believe that scientists as a whole are deceptive, lying to the public and trying to support a whim.


You, Martillo, are a douche. There is no other logical explanation. You are totally ok with trampling other peoples integrity so that you can show none.

Makes me wonder how Martillo came to hold such views.
Martillo, although you accuse fellow users of being dogmatic, you have also dogmatically adhered to your anti-relatvity stance, simply denying certain issues outright.

And people...get tired of getting soaked in douchedom from people like You. You play on that by making it appear that they have no real response to your hogwash except to unfairly call you a "crank."

True. It is tiring

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.

Heh, I don't think that goes down very well.

How come I understand Relativity and see that there is no paradox?

If you say so, but perhaps you may not have completely understood relativity. But your heart has "hardened" so to speak, after dealing with many crackpots, causing you to adopt this stance.

Still, I'll try to understand the paradox.

 

[martillo]

Just to clarify here. As long as we talking about the total elapsed time from initial separation to all three meeting up again, then we have the situation where the two traveling twin will show the same elapsed time. However, this is not true at any other point of the trip when measured from the frame of either of the traveling twins. As I've stated before and as shown by the space-time diagrams shown, For any one of the traveling twins, elapsed time for the other traveling twin will go from starting out as the same as his own, to being less than his own(and losing ground) to being more than his own due the switch of inertial frame (but losing ground from then on), to once again equaling his own.

Well, may be you are getting nearer to what I think. I agree what you say. Then don't you see the paradox in your own statement? Translated it to the concept of aging of the twins in spite of readings of clocks we have something like: "For anyone of the twins, the aging of the other twin will go from starting out from the same age, aging less than his own, aging more than his owndue to the switch of inertial frame, to once again equalling ages" Am I right? But this statement is valid literally particularly for the two travelling twins (forget the twin "at rest" for a while as just essential for initial synchronization only) at any point of the symmetrical travels, right? Then we must agree that at any point, when one twin observes (for instance) the other twin aging less, this other twin observes the first one aging less and so opposite contradictory observations. this happens at any point of the travels during the entire travel and there's the paradox! Each twin observing the otherone aging less. Isn't this a contradiction/inconsistency in the theory? They are just observation of the same phenomenon involving the state of both twins and as just observations from different frames of reference what cannot give contradictory results. Don't you agree with the conclusion?

 

[martillo]

And post 137 shows why you are an idiot, there is no such thing as a Lorentz Transform between an inertial and a non inertial frame, Lorentz transforms apply only to inertial frames. The proof I showed you in post 89, contrary to your crank claims, does not employ any Lorentz transforms. You are creating your own strawman version of SR and you are trying to beat it to death. Classical crackpot.

May be a made a mistake calling Lorentz Transform, I should have called correspondant GR-transforms. The resulting conclusion is the same, flawed post.