Martillo talks about the twin paradox

[Tach]

May be a made a mistake calling Lorentz Transform, I should have called correspondant GR-transforms.

There is no such thing as "GR transforms".

The resulting conclusion is the same, flawed post.

Few ideas but fixed.

 

[eram]

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

at the rate you're going, you're gonna get this thread locked.

you suggested this to me, now i'm gonna ask a mod to block you for a while.

 

[eram]

The guy is like he has cement for brains.

for once I agree with you.


to be fair, I popped over to martillo's site.

There are 3 main points about light:
1) Relativity is wrong, ballistic theory is the way to go.
2) Every half-wavelength segment consists of an individual photon. :wallbang:
3) Oh, that's it.

 

[martillo]

at the rate you're going, you're gonna get this thread locked.

you suggested this to me, now i'm gonna ask a mod to block you for a while.

I think that's not possible. I think is not possible for a starter of a thread to selectivelly block who to post and who to not post in the thread on his own criteria.

 

[eram]

I think is not possible for a starter of a thread to selectivelly block who to post and who to not post in the thread on his own criteria.

i think it is possible for a mod to do so, don't you?

 

[martillo]

i think it is possible for a mod to do so, don't you?

A mod can suspend (even delete may be) someone from posting in the forum according to the forum's rules but not because a posting user don't like what other is posting.
You should understand that if I was allowed to continue posting is because I did it discussing rationally with good enough arguments and reasoning. You should also consider that all this is good for you if you are really interested in getting insight of the twins' paradox problem since you could now be conscient about all the possible problems, arguments, refutations and point of views that all the participants of the forum can offer to you. Think as if you are getting fast into the "state of the art" in the subject.

 

[eram]

I did it discussing rationally with good enough arguments and reasoning.

yup. everyone agrees.

You should also consider that all this is good for you if you are really interested in getting insidht of the problem you presented since you could now be conscient about all the possible problems, arguments, refutations and point of views that all the participants of the forum can offer to you. Think as if you are getting fast into the "state of the art" in the subject.

not quite sure what you mean.

 

[martillo]

not quite sure what you mean.

I edited my post a bit while you posted. May be looks better now.
I mean if you really want to find the right solution to a problem which has been discussed for years in forums it could be better to hear about all point of views, even the ones you don't like too much at a first approach, because you can't know a priori which is the right solution. This is important particularly in your case since I think you posted the problem because of "feeling" something strange on it, isn't it?
You know, when I had important problems to discuss and learn about I even posted in several forums, not only one, to know about all the point of views possible, analyze all of them properly enough and after take my own conclusions. I think that is the right way particularly in controversial subjects.

By the way, english is not my natural language so I could not write things well enough and some confusions arise. I will ask you to try to "override" this issue as possible.

 

[eram]

I mean if you really want to find the right solution to a problem which has been discussed for years in forums it could be better to hear about all point of views, even the ones you don't like too much at a first approach, because you can't know a priori which is the right solution.

i'm already trying to understand the mainstream, got no time for your false assumptions

 

[Neverfly]

i'm already trying to understand the mainstream, got no time for your false assumptions

Exactly. Martillo is barking up the wrong tree with that line of reasoning. In all reality, you won't functionally manage these topics without formal education. A forum is a great place to discuss- but learning on one is a slow and haggling process.
With formal education, you have reasoned guidance that keeps a set pattern and an instructor to turn to to keep you on track. Whereas on a forum, you must weed out the fluff.
Martillo is proposing that confusing fluff is a good thing. It's not.

You must understand the mainstream fully before you can even think about checking out alternatives.

And some alternatives are quite good and worthy and deserve peer review. Peer review. Not layman review.

 

[martillo]

i'm already trying to understand the mainstream, got no time for your false assumptions

It's your decision and is fine, everyone follows his intuition although I don't know how can you decide that my proposition is "false"...
I will try to respect your intentions and no post anymore, I already tried, you know that because I posted that, but I was provoked sometimes and asked (directly or indirectly) for responding othertimes in the thread and I couldn't leave it. Let we see now although I'm waiting for some answer to my post to janus58 and emil who explicity asked for my opinion about something to discuss in a possible other thread in the Alternatives Theories forum or privatelly by e-mail, I don't know.
Anyway, you can just ignore passing over my posts without reading them just reading those you want to see isn't it?

 

[eram]

It's your decision and is fine, everyone follows his intuition. I will try to respect your intentions and no post anymore. Anyway, you can just ignore passing over my posts without reading them just reading those you want to see isn't it?

okay. i will.

Exactly. Martillo is barking up the wrong tree with that line of reasoning. In all reality, you won't functionally manage these topics without formal education. A forum is a great place to discuss- but learning on one is a slow and haggling process.
With formal education, you have reasoned guidance that keeps a set pattern and an instructor to turn to to keep you on track. Whereas on a forum, you must weed out the fluff.
Martillo is proposing that confusing fluff is a good thing. It's not.

You must understand the mainstream fully before you can even think about checking out alternatives.

And some alternatives are quite good and worthy and deserve peer review. Peer review. Not layman review.

that's true.

the failure of the forum system is demonstrated by the fact that threads on the twin paradox routinely reach 10 pages or more.

 

[Neverfly]

the failure of the forum system is demonstrated by the fact that threads on the twin paradox routinely reach 10 pages or more.

It's not a failure... It's what it means to be part of a forum. Martillo has every right to post and discuss his ideas, here. He'd be removed from a lecture hall, however. There is the difference. While it will understandably frustrate you if you're asking serious questions and someone like Martillo pops up with something other than a proper answer, he's allowed to do so. It is a forum for discussion. You have the right idea to pass over posts that you find a distraction, contrary or uninteresting.
The forum hasn't failed- it's simply the setting.

 

[eram]

It's not a failure... It's what it means to be part of a forum. Martillo has every right to post and discuss his ideas, here. He'd be removed from a lecture hall, however. There is the difference. While it will understandably frustrate you if you're asking serious questions and someone like Martillo pops up with something other than a proper answer, he's allowed to do so. It is a forum for discussion. You have the right idea to pass over posts that you find a distraction, contrary or uninteresting.
The forum hasn't failed- it's simply the setting.

Or we may consider it limitations of the forum system. for forums in general.



I've realized that most of the confusion stems from the neccessary frame jumping required to make one's way back. The modelling of this frame switching is highly debatable.

Furthermore, for two different observers, the same scenario can play out, but these scenarios contradict one another.

Attempting to transit from one observer to another brings us back to the first point.

:scratchin::shrug:

 

[Janus58]

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 twinsand as just observations from different frames of reference what cannot give contradictory results. Don't you agree with the conclusion?

There is no contradiction any more than there is a contradiction in the following:
You have two men standing side by side and facing the same direction. They now both turn by 45° away from each other. If you ask either man where the other man is in terms of behind or in front, he will say that he is behind him. If both men now turn by 90° back toward the other and ask them the same question, they will say that the other man is now in front of him. turn them back to their original direction and they will once again say that they even with each other.

Time is frame dependent in the same way as Front and back are dependent on the direction you are facing in the above example. There is no requirement for inertial frames with different velocities to agree on time anymore than the two men in the example are required to agree on "front" and "back" under all circumstances.

 

[Janus58]

It's not a failure... It's what it means to be part of a forum. Martillo has every right to post and discuss his ideas, here. He'd be removed from a lecture hall, however. There is the difference. While it will understandably frustrate you if you're asking serious questions and someone like Martillo pops up with something other than a proper answer, he's allowed to do so. It is a forum for discussion. You have the right idea to pass over posts that you find a distraction, contrary or uninteresting.
The forum hasn't failed- it's simply the setting.

However, it not beyond reason for the moderators to consider Martillo's actions in this thread as highjacking of the thread, especially when the OP has expressed to desire receive the mainstream answer to his question.

 

[Neverfly]

However, it not beyond reason for the moderators to consider Martillo's actions in this thread as highjacking of the thread, especially when the OP has expressed to desire receive the mainstream answer to his question.

Not beyond reason... But I wouldn't push for it, either. A free exchange of ideas is more welcome, in my opinion, than a lack of tolerance is. I disagree with Martillo and I told him so. Heh... yeah...
But that doesn't mean he should be silenced. Were he to be silenced, I'd fight for his ability to speak.

No, Eram is no fool, I think, and it's up to him to ignore Martillo.

 

[OnlyMe]

the failure of the forum system is demonstrated by the fact that threads on the twin paradox routinely reach 10 pages or more.

As others have mentioned, I do not believe that is a failure of the forum system.

While martillo's views are contrary to any generally accepted interpretation of SR, they have resulted in a number of responses by people who do understand SR. If one focuses on those knowledgable responses rather than martillo's imaginations, there has been some good discussion and explanation.

This discussion group is, in my limited opinion, a vary good and open arena for the free exchange of ideas and information. The moderators do a pretty good job of keeping things from going too far off track. That does not mean that everyone will be happy with all aspects of any thread, or that any thread will ultimately be limited to a single conversation/discussion.

There is at least one other forum that has very strict posting guidelines, which would not allow any divergence from accepted and well documented physics.., "PhysicsForums.com". Posts like martillo's and/or fringe and alternative interpretations, would generally be dealt with very quickly, on that site, where the focus is on serving serious students questions.

While I do follow conversations there on and off, I much prefer the free and open discussion format, here on SciForums.

 

[martillo]

There is no contradiction any more than there is a contradiction in the following:
You have two men standing side by side and facing the same direction. They now both turn by 45° away from each other. If you ask either man where the other man is in terms of behind or in front, he will say that he is behind him. If both men now turn by 90° back toward the other and ask them the same question, they will say that the other man is now in front of him. turn them back to their original direction and they will once again say that they even with each other.

Time is frame dependent in the same way as Front and back are dependent on the direction you are facing in the above example. There is no requirement for inertial frames with different velocities to agree on time anymore than the two men in the example are required to agree on "front" and "back" under all circumstances.

But you can't pretend to solve the twins' paradox with an analogy, right? In mathematics the procedures of inference, deduction and induction exist as accepted ones to demonstrate things but doesn't exist the procedure of analogy mathematically valid. May be you can justify some things by analogy but you cannot demonstrate things by analogy. Most of the times analogies don't work very well.

 

[eram]

As others have mentioned, I do not believe that is a failure of the forum system.

While martillo's views are contrary to any generally accepted interpretation of SR, they have resulted in a number of responses by people who do understand SR. If one focuses on those knowledgable responses rather than martillo's imaginations, there has been some good discussion and explanation.

This discussion group is, in my limited opinion, a vary good and open arena for the free exchange of ideas and information. The moderators do a pretty good job of keeping things from going too far off track. That does not mean that everyone will be happy with all aspects of any thread, or that any thread will ultimately be limited to a single conversation/discussion.

There is at least one other forum that has very strict posting guidelines, which would not allow any divergence from accepted and well documented physics.., "PhysicsForums.com". Posts like martillo's and/or fringe and alternative interpretations, would generally be dealt with very quickly, on that site, where the focus is on serving serious students questions.

While I do follow conversations there on and off, I much prefer the free and open discussion format, here on SciForums.

Well, forums in general. ah yes, PhysicsForums. The moderators are always very vigorous in shifting you to their viewpoint.