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

Is not.

For Relativity any referential should be equivalent to observe any phenomenon of Nature.

The first principle of Relativity!
 
funkstar said:
martillo,

The Lorentz transforms relate frames. If you want to relate time in the mothership frame to a particular twin's frame, of course you need the Lorentz transforms that relate those two particular frames.

It's not a matter of opinion. If twin A moves to the right along the x-axis wrt. the mother ship S with relative speed v, i.e. velocity v, and their coordinates coincide on (0,0), the transformation equations relating spacetime coordinates (x<sub>S</sub>,t<sub>S</sub>) from the S frame to spacetime coordinates (x<sub>A</sub>,t<sub>A</sub>) in the frame A are

x<sub>A</sub>=&gamma;(x<sub>S</sub>-vt<sub>S</sub>)
t<sub>A</sub>=&gamma;(t<sub>S</sub>-vx<sub>S</sub>/c<sup>2</sup>)

If twin B moves to the left along the x-axis wrt. the mother ship S with relative speed v, i.e. velocity -v, and their coordinates coincide on (0,0), the transformation equations relating spacetime coordinates (x<sub>S</sub>,t<sub>S</sub>) from the S frame to spacetime coordinates (x<sub>B</sub>,t<sub>B</sub>) in the frame B are

x<sub>B</sub>=&gamma;(x<sub>S</sub>+vt<sub>S</sub>)
t<sub>B</sub>=&gamma;(t<sub>S</sub>+vx<sub>S</sub>/c<sup>2</sup>)

That's the way it is.

What you did amounts to nothing more than observing that two separated events that are simultaneous in the S frame, are not so in the A frame. No surprises there, and certainly no contradictions. This becomes extremely clear when you use frame names as subscripts instead of the ambiguous prime ('). You were transforming from S to A. That doesn't let you conclude anything about B.

So, you were mixing frames. It's a classic mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Accept it, and move on.
Click to expand...

Martillo this is the way it is. Your wrong, I'm sorry...
 
UnderWhelmed,

Martillo this is the way it is. Your wrong, I'm sorry...
Click to expand...

You do that way.
You have found a way to compensate the difference found but is mathematically wrong.
It's wrong.
I'm sorry.
 
martillo said:
Is not.

For Relativity any referential should be equivalent to observe any phenomenon of Nature.

The first principle of Relativity!
Click to expand...

Wrong again! it states "the laws of physics must take the same form in all reference frames".

It does NOT say anything about the having to have the same results in each and every frame...your confused.

It only states that the laws of physics are the same in each frame, which is still true in the twin paradox that you love so much
 
UnderWhelmed,

So you accept contradictory results in different frames as normal...
I can't believe...
 
martillo said:
funkstar,



In this case all what I can say is that you are wrong putting a different transform equation for each twin. Once you choused a referential the equations are determined and must be the same for every object observed!
You are defining two different transforms, one for each twin.
This is wrong.
Click to expand...
The Lorentz transformation equations transform spacetime coordinates from one frame S into spacetime coordinates for another frame S'. Two frames, not one, determine how the Lorents transforms look.

This is not up for debate.
 
martillo said:
UnderWhelmed,



You do that way.
You have found a way to compensate the difference found but is mathematically wrong.
It's wrong.
I'm sorry.
Click to expand...


And you wonder why YOU become the topic of conversation. It is YOU who cannot fathom relativity, and it's your lack therein that limits you here. Since you repeatedly demonstrated the same lack of comprehension, that becomes the topic. Then you keep telling other people they are wrong. This IS EVIDENT of a SUPERIORITY COMPLEX.

If you really want to understand, open your mind to the possibility that at the moment, there is something fundamental about what these people are telling you that you might not understand. Otherwise, the possibility of expanding your comprehension is zero.
 
Wesmorris,

Again, nothing to contribute to the problem, just comments about myself...

I have the mind open, I do consider what they say seriously!

The problem is that you don't consider me seriously. They who post real arguments (right or wrong) consider me in a better way than you do.

Your comments have no significance at all!
 
martillo said:
UnderWhelmed,

So you accept contradictory results in different frames as normal...
I can't believe...
Click to expand...
There are no contradictory results. You just don't know how to use the Lorentz transforms.
 
martillo said:
UnderWhelmed,

So you accept contradictory results in different frames as normal...
I can't believe...
Click to expand...

Christ! There is no contradiction. Your confusing frames. You just want everything to look the same everywhere, from every speed, at every frame. Instead of trying to devise new physics theory's, perhaps you should build a time machine and travel back about 500 years so that you'll be on the same page as everyone else in the world... :rolleyes:
 
martillo said:
Wesmorris,

Again, nothing to contribute to the problem, just comments about myself...

I have the mind open, I do consider what they say seriously!

The problem is that you don't consider me seriously. They who post real arguments (right or wrong) consider me in a better way than you do.

Your comments have no significance at all!
Click to expand...

So says the uncontrolled ego.

I am perfectly willing to take you seriously, but you have yet to demonstrate a minimal comprehension of that which you criticize.

YOU ARE MIXING FRAMES. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF FRAMES OR SPACE-TIME. IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT YOU JUST SAY "that's wrong cuz they have to be consistent" WITHOUT THE REMOTE COMPREHENSION THAT THEY ARE UNDER THE MODEL IN QUESTION. GET A FUCKING CLUE KID.

Instead of saying to those kind enough to correct you, "you're wrong"... it would behoove your sorry ass to say "I don't understand, how can that be consistent the way you state it".

Asshat.
 
martillo said:
You have found a way to compensate the difference found but is mathematically wrong.
Click to expand...
No. What I do is the mathematically right thing. I'll write up what you did again, but with explicit frames, so the error is more apparent:

In frame S at some time t<sub>S</sub>, twin A is at x<sub>S</sub> = vt<sub>S</sub> and twin B is at x<sub>S</sub>= -vt<sub>S</sub>.

You applied the Lorentz transformation for the time coordinate from frame S to frame A, which say the following:

t<sub>A</sub>=&gamma;(t<sub>S</sub>-vx<sub>S</sub>/c<sup>2</sup>)

Giving you for twin A in frame A:

t<sub>A</sub>=t<sub>S</sub>/&gamma;

and for twin B in frame A:

t<sub>A</sub>=&gamma;t<sub>S</sub>(1+v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)

Note the subscript A linking this value to the A frame. This value has nothing to do with the time elapsed in B's frame!

You thought it did, but it doesn't. If you want to say something about the time elapsed in the B frame, you must use the Lorentz transforms relating S and B. Not the ones relating S and A.

Is that clear?
 
We must choose ONE referential on the mother-ship to study the complete problem and here the problem is what happens with both twins at the same time.

In my theory there's no invariance of light. The velocity of light is different accordingly to which referential is used as in Classical Physics.

Two serious flaws in your assumptions.
 
The problem is that you don't consider me seriously.

Of course not, you're wrong and everyone is showing you where you're wrong but instead you ignore it.
 
Anomalous said:
How can U not care , That Wesmorris is saying that Satellites are ageing less, they are in orbit and not even accelarating,

we r truly on planet of apes.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Anomalous said:
How can U not care , That Wesmorris is saying that Satellites are ageing less, they are in orbit and not even accelarating,
Click to expand...

*sigh*

They are not aging less in their frame. It's only when they leave their frame and join our own that we can see the difference in the elapsed times. This is because of the relavitity of simultanaety, as was mentioned previously.

This is what relativity predicts, and what has been observed as far as I know. Regardless I don't find anyone who can't demonstrate clear comprehension of this concept qualified to criticize it.

we r truly on planet of apes.
Click to expand...

So? You ashamed of your heritage?
 
funkstar,

Thank for your good kind of comment. I know it takes time to write equations. I believe is an important problem, let find the right solution, let find the truth...

You applied the Lorentz transformation for the time coordinate from frame S to frame A, which say the following:

tA=γ(tS-vxS/c2)

Giving you for twin A in frame A:

tA=tS/γ

and for twin B in frame A:

tA=γtS(1+v2/c2)

Note the subscript A linking this value to the A frame. This value has nothing to do with the time elapsed in B's frame!
Click to expand...

OK, you applied the equations exactly as I did.
Now, I agree that the value could be different if we change the referential but not the relationship between the values that determine which twin gets gets younger than the other.
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.
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.

Don't you see something can be wrong here?

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

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. Age is an intrinsic property of living individuals and should be the same independent of the referential of observation. As I said photographies can be taken...

Then I see three contradictions in the problem. Don't you agree with anyone of them?
 
Your comparing apple's to orange's again.




TwinA(frame1)<-----<------MotherShip(frame2)------>----->TwinB(frame3)


What frame are you making your calculations in? And remeber that you can't start calculating values in one frame and then switch over to another frame.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top