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

Trajectory is relative, age is not.
Age is an intrinsic property of living individuals that cannot be changed by a change of coordinates!
 
martillo:

Age is an intrinsic property of living individuals that cannot be changed by a change of coordinates!

Who says it does change? A persons proper time never changes. What's the problem?
 
martillo:

If you define "age" as "cumulative proper time elapsed for the individual since birth", then you are completely correct. Age is then an invariant quantity which cannot be altered by a change of coordinates.
 
Superluminal,

Who says it does change? A persons proper time never changes. What's the problem?

Then age must be measured the same in any referential choused but Relativity have different predictions depending on which referential is chosen, this is the inconsistency!
 
martillo said:
Then age must be measured the same in any referential choused but Relativity have different predictions depending on which referential is chosen, this is the inconsistency!
You are neglecting relativity of simultaneity. That is how SR gets away with reciprocity.
 
I cannot see any problem about simultaneity in the presented problem, please explain your point.
 
martillo:

...this is the inconsistency!

No, this is reality. Objects moving very fast really do age at a slower rate with respect to us. This is observed using high speed particles. It's a fact. And since there is no preferred frame and no absolute state of rest, then we would be seen to age slower from the perspective of the particle. It's relative. The reason one may show less accumulated time (age) on decelerating to the other's frame, is that the one doing the accelerating/decelerating is following a spacetime trajectory in which he is not always in uniform motion.
 
The reason one may show less accumulated time (age) on decelerating to the other's frame, is that the one doing the accelerating/decelerating is following a spacetime trajectory in which he is not always in uniform motion.
I know this is true per SR as I've mentioned so myself plenty of times. But I'd really like to see the proof of this. (Other than, it must be so! - because SR says so)

I foresee any possible proof being a circular argument.
 
Superluminal,

That's the same "relativistic reasoning" I applied to the proposed problem and it fall into contradictions.



Objects moving very fast really do age at a slower rate with respect to us. This is observed using high speed particles.

Actually I believe another physical interpretation could be found for those experiments.
 
Superluminal,

That's the same "relativistic reasoning" I applied to the proposed problem and it fall into contradictions.




Objects moving very fast really do age at a slower rate with respect to us. This is observed using high speed particles.

Actually I believe another physical interpretation could be found for those experiments.
 
5. Tests of the "Twin Paradox"

Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment).
They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns).

Vessot et al, "A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Space-borne Clock", Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181-204; "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser", Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 2081-2084.
They flew a hydrogen maser in a Scout rocket up into space and back (not recovered). Gravitational effects are important, as are the velocity effects of SR.

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, p363-427.
They flew atomic clocks in airplanes which remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.
Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301;

Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979).
They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below).
 
You remember me that was proven that light bends near the sun and Relativity explain that with space-time distortion. It can also be explained by photons with mass...
 
Back
Top