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

[fo3]

But you can freely choose to put the first referential to one or the other twin, and the results are opposite!
This implies a contradiction!

One of the twins must be affected by a force and be accelerated in order for the twins to be united again. During the acceleration, one of the twins is not in an inertial frame of reference, so you cannot freely choose between the frames.
No contradiction.
And if both of the twins experienced a equal acceleration then there would be no difference in their ages.
Do some research on the so-called twins paradox and better yet, do some research on special relativity and how it can be used.

 

[funkstar]

I assume both referentials as correct possible referentials but the RESULTS are opposite so there's a CONTRADICTION here and contradiction means a wrong theory!

What "RESULTS" are opposite?

I propose that you are simply confused about what the twin 'paradox' says, and that you're falling into that age-old trap of assuming symmetry where it isn't allowed.

Hint: One of the twins changes frames midway through his journey. The other one does not. Why do you think you're allowed to assume any sort of symmetry wrt. their proper time, given this?

 

[funkstar]

And if both of the twins experienced a equal acceleration then there would be no difference in their ages.

This isn't generally true. A comparatively short acceleration phase at the end of the travelling twins journey will not undo the time dilation effects of the long stays in different frames. There's nothing that says that bringing a clock from one frame A into another frame B will cause it to read the same as the B frame's clock.

 

[fo3]

If the twins accelerate in opposite directions with the exact same acceleration for the same amount of time, then fly on for some time and then encounter an acceleration in opposite direction so that they are headed back towards each other again with equal speeds, then they will be of the same age. Even after a long trip in space.

 

[martillo]

Well, hearing you it seems there's no paradox.
Why it is called PARADOX in Physics' books then?

 

[funkstar]

If the twins accelerate in opposite directions with the exact same acceleration for the same amount of time, then fly on for some time and then encounter an acceleration in opposite direction so that they are headed back towards each other again with equal speeds, then they will be of the same age. Even after a long trip in space.

Oh, yes, I agree. But that's not the twin 'paradox', then.

 

[funkstar]

Well, hearing you it seems there's no paradox.
Why it is called PARADOX in Physics' books then?

It's called a paradox, because it goes against our usual conception of time. It's not a genuine paradox, because it is easily explainable.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

What "RESULTS" are opposite?

I propose that you are simply confused about what the twin 'paradox' says, and that you're falling into that age-old trap of assuming symmetry where it isn't allowed.

Hint: One of the twins changes frames midway through his journey. The other one does not. Why do you think you're allowed to assume any sort of symmetry wrt. their proper time, given this?

I agree he is just confused about alot of things.

 

[Nasor]

"A New Light In Physics" is brighting!!!

What is coming now?
Just "Real Physics"!

Let me guess: you submitted this to peer-reviewed physics journals but it was quickly rejected, so you posted it on the internet and decided to try to hype it up in popular science forums?

 

[Aer]

Let me guess: you submitted this to peer-reviewed physics journals but it was quickly rejected, so you posted it on the internet and decided to try to hype it up in popular science forums?

Zanket has a new name you say?

 

[fo3]

Well, hearing you it seems there's no paradox.
Why it is called PARADOX in Physics' books then?

You heard about something called the twins paradox, and without even knowing anything about it, you concluded that SRT must be wrong and constructed a new and "better" theory? Wow.. Talk about quick decisions and theory constructing..

 

[Janus58]

Well, hearing you it seems there's no paradox.
Why it is called PARADOX in Physics' books then?

From my copy of The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language:

paradox, A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; a statement which seems to be at variance with common sense, or to contradict some previously ascertained truth, though when properly investigated it may be perfectly well founded.
(Italics mine)

Example: The idea of a spherical Earth was once held to be a paradox, as it was contrary to the preceived notion of the time that 'down' was a universal direction.

 

[martillo]

Ok, I understand, but Q said never seen a paradox of Relativity Theory!

 

[martillo]

Anyway for me is not even a paradox but a CONTRADICTION. if we have two travelling twins then at any instant Relativity cannot determine which is getting younger or older because each one will see the other getting younger. This are opposite results reached changing only the point of view! For me the "age-old symetry" exists at every instant.
Of course you disagree with this and will try to discuss with so many arguments I have already seen in so many without-end Relativity threads.

I will not discuss this.

I prefer to wait for the results of the experiment I suggested and that I believe it will be done some day. It's not so difficult to do although the right resources are needed.

 

[Janus58]

Anyway for me is not even a paradox but a CONTRADICTION. if we have two travelling twins then at any instant Relativity cannot determine which is getting younger or older because each one will see the other getting younger. This are opposite results reached changing only the point of view! For me the "age-old symetry" exists at every instant.

And for many, down existed as a single universal direction

Of course you disagree with this and will try to discuss with so many arguments I have already seen in so many without-end Relativity threads.

And in all this time you've successively prevented any real understanding of the Theory from sinking in.

I will not discuss this.

Then why are you here?

I prefer to wait for the results of the experiment I suggested and that I believe it will be done some day. It's not so difficult to do although the right resources are needed.

 

[James R]

Why it is called PARADOX in Physics' books then?

Most physics books, when mentioning the Twin Paradox, immediately say that it is not really a paradox at all, but only apparently a paradox at first glance. Many used the term "paradox" in inverted commas.

 

[(Q)]

Ok, I understand, but Q said never seen a paradox of Relativity Theory!

That is correct. I have yet to see a paradox of relativity.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

For me the "age-old symetry" exists at every instant.

Can you give me a better definition of what this means? I am clearly not on your level of intellect...

 

[martillo]

UnderWhelmed,

Forget the twins for a moment and think just in two guys travelling in two space-ships. Suppose they have a relative velocity between them. May be both were accelerated for some time but now they are travelling at a constant velocity v between them.
Applying Relativity to them we will see that one is getting older than the other.
But we can freely choose the referential of one of the two guys as the first one. For Relativity any referential is equivalent to study every phenomena of Nature.
If we choose the referential of one guy ass the first we will have that the other guy is getting YOUNGER while if we choose the other referential this guy is getting OLDER...

This means opposite results, this means CONTRADICTION...

May be we as you said we must have an Absolute Referential to determine the truth but for Relativity this must not exist! We would go against Relativity trying to do this.

For me this subject have NO SOLUTION. The Theory is wrong.

 

[funkstar]

You're still struggling with the relativity of simultaneity, I see.