The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!

[martillo]

Aer,

YES, you are apparently an ape. I don't care if martillo actually thinks things age younger or age less in the strict sense of the words. Because I think he means age less and anyone with a brain sizably larger than an ape's brain would know he actually means age less as Spanish is his native language.

Internet is worldwide medium of communication and is expected interactions of people of very different regions and countries. How can one be so silly to think evrybody should speak well in some unknown "pretty" language?
And which one it would be, american english?, britain english?, scotland?

What a silly thought!

 

[(Q)]

martillo - you don't appear to understand relativity in any language.

Why not change the title of this thread to, 'Help, I don't understand relativity."

 

[Aer]

Internet is worldwide medium of communication and is expected interactions of people of very different regions and countries. How can one be so silly to think evrybody should speak well in some unknown "pretty" language?

Yep, I completely agree - which is why I have not picked on you for not using the correct wording.

And which one it would be, american english?, britain english?, scotland?

I prefer Australian even though I am not Australian.

And there is no such thing as "American English". - I want to shoot myself everytime I hear a southerner speak. Same goes for those Bostonians.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

Again:
I'm making the calculations in al the three of them and the results SHOULD be CONSISTENT in the three!
The penomena of nature are independent of the frame we chouse. We just select frames on our convenience to have a good description of them.

I don't know what to say to this...

Anyone else wanna take a stab at this one?

 

[UnderWhelmed]

Martillo, you'll notice that no one has ever pointed out that your english isn't great. The issue in this thread, is your apparent lack basic understanding of relativity.

Don't turn this thread into an arguement about grammer.

 

[Aer]

Again:
I'm making the calculations in al the three of them and the results SHOULD be CONSISTENT in the three!
The penomena of nature are independent of the frame we chouse. We just select frames on our convenience to have a good description of them.

I don't know what to say to this...

Anyone else wanna take a stab at this one?

Sure, I'll give it a go.

I'm making the calculations in [all] three [frames] and the results SHOULD be CONSISTENT in the three!

What results? Since you've been talking about age, I am going to assume you mean time measurements should all be consistent. I'm not sure what the three frames are and I am too lazy to try to find out, so I'll just make up 3 frames. The first frame will be the Earth frame, called frame E. The second frame will be object A's frame, called frame A, the third frame will be object B's frame, called frame B.

Now if we are talking about the twin paradox, then object A is twin A and object B is twin B. In the twin paradox, one twin stays on Earth while the other travels away at high speed. Therefore frame A will be the same as frame E.

Now, when the twin travels away, eventually he has to come back to compare clocks. The event in which he accelerates to turn around will not be simultaneous in frame A and frame B. frame B will say this event happened before frame A would say it happend. This is an effect of the relativity of simultaneity. Now when frame B is back in the vicinity of Earth, the time according to frame B will be less than that of frame A. This is time dilation.

Keep in mind, the relativity of simultaneity is a requirement of special relativity, but it has never been actually observed to happen.

 

[Aer]

Martillo, you'll notice that no one has ever pointed out that your english isn't great. The issue in this thread, is your apparent lack basic understanding of relativity.

Don't turn this thread into an arguement about grammer.

Oh please, don't tell me you didn't know what martillo was talking about when he said "age younger".

 

[wesmorris]

Oh please, don't tell me you didn't know what martillo was talking about when he said "age younger".

It was me who brought that up, and at the time I wasn't sure. It seemed to me he was saying one was getting younger. I didn't give him a hard time about it. I just said "neither is getting younger" or somethign to that effect.

 

[Aer]

I know you brought it up first, but many others did after you as well and made a big deal about it.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

Sure, I'll give it a go.


What results? Since you've been talking about age, I am going to assume you mean time measurements should all be consistent. I'm not sure what the three frames are and I am too lazy to try to find out, so I'll just make up 3 frames. The first frame will be the Earth frame, called frame E. The second frame will be object A's frame, called frame A, the third frame will be object B's frame, called frame B.

Now if we are talking about the twin paradox, then object A is twin A and object B is twin B. In the twin paradox, one twin stays on Earth while the other travels away at high speed. Therefore frame A will be the same as frame E.

Now, when the twin travels away, eventually he has to come back to compare clocks. The event in which he accelerates to turn around will not be simultaneous in frame A and frame B. frame B will say this event happened before frame A would say it happend. This is an effect of the relativity of simultaneity. Now when frame B is back in the vicinity of Earth, the time according to frame B will be less than that of frame A. This is time dilation.

Keep in mind, the relativity of simultaneity is a requirement of special relativity, but it has never been actually observed to happen.

He is just going to say that because the twins are aging at a different rate, relativity is wrong...etc...my theory is correct...etc...blah...blah...

 

[martillo]

Aer,

It seems you haven't read properly the problem I presented to question. Is not the current twin paradox. Is a special experiment thought mainly to override the possible effects of accelerations and although the twins make an encounter they don't stop, just the cross point is examined in detail because it provides very interesting results.

Please, take a look above.

 

[Aer]

It's more than "seems". I will flat out tell you that I haven't read any of your presentation.

However, you should be able to apply the points I raised to whatever your question is.

 

[martillo]

Aer,

Now when frame B is back in the vicinity of Earth, the time according to frame B will be less than that of frame A. This is time dilation.

This is what you can see from the Earth frame. The problem is that the "travelling twin" sees the opposite: He sees the twin at Earth ageing less!
This means contradiction.
Currently the contradiction is removed considering some possible effects due to acceleration. The twin that went away had to accelerate and the acceleration can decide that this twin is which ages less, not the other.
Others says that to determine which twin really ages less and which more an Absolute Frame should be necessary. The problem is that in Relativity such frame must not exist.

The experiment I presented is similar but is thought to override any possible effect of acceleration and the contradiction remains.

"Kapeesh"?

 

[Aer]

This is what you can see from the Earth frame. The problem is that the "travelling twin" sees the opposite: He sees the twin at Earth ageing less!
This means contradiction.
Currently the contradiction is removed considering some possible effects due to acceleration.

That's correct. Special Relativity explains it away by saying the acceleration is an event that is not simultaneous according to the two different frames. Whether the relativity of simultaneity is real or not is a separate discussion. But special relativity does not lead to a contradiction as you say above.

The experiment I presented is similar but is thought to override any possible effect of acceleration and the contradiction remains.

Then you cannot compare clocks according to special relativity.

"Kapeesh"?

No.

 

[martillo]

Aer,

Then you cannot compare clocks according to special relativity.

Who says I can't? You say that!
Of course I can and I'm comparing ages!

That's like to say "Don't see what is happening, close your eyes".

Open your eyes!

 

[wesmorris]

Asshat. Yup.

 

[Aer]

I say you can be on both spaceships simultaneously in order to do this clock comparison you speak of - so it must be so. You are a GOD. You are everywhere at once. Tell me, what am I doing right now?

 

[funkstar]

What is contradictory is that in one frame one twin age less and in the other frame is the other twin which age less. This is the contradiction I see.
Only one possibility must be true.

No. Due to the relativity of simultaneity, both views are true.

As I said photographies could be taken to definetly determine what is really happening to the twins and you will agree that the photographies will not change if we sent them to some frame or the other.

There's no such thing as "really happening" when it comes to time. It's all frame dependent. Including photography. Hence, you might take some photo from S, but neither A nor B will agree that the world looked like the photograph at any one instant for them.

The same contradiction applies if we consider the frames of the twins and the results between themselves. Any comment?

You're saying that there's some contradiction in mutual time dilation, right? I don't agree. Time is not a frame independent quantity, so there's nothing that requires different frames to give the same results.

Finally also exist the difference between the ages calculated with the twins frames and the mother-ship frames. As I said I agree the time value can be different when calculating it in different frames but I can't believe that the ages (difference of initial and final values of time?) could be different.

I think the term you're looking for is "proper time".

Now, time dilation is proven to be true. The Hafale & Keating experiment sent aircraft around the world in different directions. They ended up disagreeing on the elapsed time. GPS clocks in satellites are set to a different frequency to compensate for the gravitational redshift and kinematic blueshift in time.

Time is frame dependent. That's just the way nature is.

Age is an intrinsic property of living individuals and should be the same independent of the referential of observation.

Proper time for something is the length of its worldline (in the Lorentz metric) in spacetime, and that is frame invariant (it doesn't depend on the choice of coordinates).

However, how you view somebody progressing along that worldline is frame dependent.

As I said photographies can be taken...

And those photographs will be frame dependent.

Then I see three contradictions in the problem. Don't you agree with anyone of them?

No.

 

[funkstar]

That's correct. Special Relativity explains it away by saying the acceleration is an event that is not simultaneous according to the two different frames.

Actually, that is quite insignificant. The important things is that due to one of the twins changing frames, and the other not doing so, there's no symmetry, because we can definitely say which twin has the shorter worldline through spacetime.

 

[Aer]

Actually, that is quite insignificant. The important things is that due to one of the twins changing frames, and the other not doing so, there's no symmetry, because we can definitely say which twin has the shorter worldline through spacetime.

I believe that is one in the same thing as the relativity of simultaneity explanation - though I'd have to look it up to confirm.

Here is a link that shows all the different explanations: link