"A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics) is brighting!!!

What is coming now?
Just "Real Physics"!

You lost me upon claiming "absolute position". What a silly notion with no evidence to support it. The very idea of position is intrisically relative in the context of nature. Point A is meaningless without some other point to compare it to, and you can never know if both points are in motion relative to something else.

Ho hum. Another "revolutionary" theory.

Can you give us a quick summary of your theory's major results, please?

Also, can you suggest an experiment which could prove your theory false, potentially?

Thanks.

Fucking hell.

Holy shit! We have a revolutionary breakthrough here. This journal is going to be famous for publishing this - all hail geocities, the new journalistic hotness in the scientific community.

ok, why on earth would you believe anything you get from a geocites site?

Am I reading this thing right? In one section he states that E/M radiation propagates at c+source velocity and in another E/M is action at a distance. (Instantaneous). :m: :confused: :bugeye:

James R,

Can you give us a quick summary of your theory's major results, please?

Yes I can: just read the CONCLUSION (http://geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Conclusion.htm) of the text.


Also, can you suggest an experiment which could prove your theory false, potentially?

No, I can suggest an experiment to prove it right: just take a look on section 6.4 of the text: "The experiment as a proof" (http://geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm).

I tend to consider proof as proof. "The experiment as a proof" what the fuck does that mean? That comming up with an experiment counts as proof?

And by the way, the 6.4 section was the shortest experiment description i have ever seen. Perhaps i should try something similar in my documents, instead of actually writing what i want to say i simply link to another section which in turn links to another section. :p

DAMNIT! I was just starting to get a handle on the old theroy's! :mad:

Also, can you suggest an experiment which could prove your theory false, potentially?

On a sidenote, I'm amazed at the amount of people who fail to grasp this notion.

Whats the old saying "know your enemies" or something to that effect... ;)

On a sidenote, I'm amazed at the amount of people who fail to grasp this notion.On a sidenote, I'm amazed at the amount of you who fail to grasp what is and is not a proof of length contraction. ;)

Hey martillo, that appears to be the same 'new light in physics' that has already been debunked in other forums.

Do you want it debunked here too?

Please debunk it, I don't want to waste my time even skimming through it.

Debunked???
Where? I didn't see it!

Hearing at all of you I can understand how a Physic's LIE can survive for 100 years.

You really don't take Physics seriously. You don't worry about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. You really don't care about the truth. You simply read, memorize and repeat every wroten thing in every "pretty book" and behaves as you know it all (in a sarcastic style of course).

That's why Physics is at the state it is.

wesmorris,

You lost me upon claiming "absolute position". What a silly notion with no evidence to support it. The very idea of position is intrisically relative in the context of nature. Point A is meaningless without some other point to compare it to, and you can never know if both points are in motion relative to something else.

The notion of absolute position have sense when we think in the place of things in the Universe. It's relative to an absolute frame of the Universe. Is not the relative distance between objects.

Debunked???
Where? I didn't see it!

You saw it, you ignored it.

wesmorris,

The notion of absolute position have sense when we think in the place of things in the Universe.

I obviously disagree.

It's relative to an absolute frame of the Universe. Is not the relative distance between objects.

*sigh*

There is no evidence of an "absolute frame of the universe". Even if you had that evidence, how do you know it's not moving in relation to something else?

You're missing the point, but that's okay. Other posters have much more relevant criticisms. I'm out of here.

You lost me upon claiming "absolute position". What a silly notion with no evidence to support it. The very idea of position is intrisically relative in the context of nature. Point A is meaningless without some other point to compare it to, and you can never know if both points are in motion relative to something else.
Try scanning these couple of posts. They might just show you are probably 'in error' by your ssumptions regarding "absoluteness". (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47515&page=6&pp=20)

Geistkiesel :cool:

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant.

I am sick and tired of people coming onto internet fora with these wild-hacked theories that purport to fix "problems" with existing physical laws, and yet make almost no predictions. On top of making almost no predictions, they come in with some hypothetical experiment that "confirms" their theory, when either
(a) The experiment has been done already and has in fact invalidated their theory or
(b) The experimental design is so vague as to be useless, or so poorly thought out that it wouldn't be possible to perform the experiment to begin with.

Then they get met with resistance from the existing scientific community, and develop a martyr complex. Here is the way that physics research works, more or less:
1. An experiment is performed. It either confirms an existing theory (see 2) or finds some new effects (see 3)
2. Kudos, we've made our existing theories more accurate.
3. Let's come up with some possible theory explaining things from existing theories. If we succeed, see 4. If we fail, see 5.
4. Publish the derivation from the existing theory and see if your result has any other implications.
5. Come up with a brand new theory out of the ether (HINT: This hasn't happened since Galileo or Newton). Test to see if this new theory works. If so, see 6. If not, see 7.
6. Claim Nobel Prize
7. Return to 3.

If you come up with a new theory, the burden is on you to prove that it is in some way better than an existing theory. This is the way science works. It keeps people from running around with inane ideas on how the universe works and declaring "OH YEAH! Prove me WRONG." to everyone else.

If you have a new idea about the universe, then great. Flesh it out and see if it duplicates existing theoretical and experimental results. If it does, see where it expands upon existing theories and either perform or at least provide a very detailed design of an experiment to be performed that would falsify or confirm your theory.

This is the way science works. So stop complaining when the establishment slaps down people that start a geocities site to espouse their latest and greatest idea.

Try scanning these couple of posts. They might just show you are probably 'in error' by your ssumptions regarding "absoluteness". (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47515&page=6&pp=20)

Geistkiesel :cool:

I've read most of your stuff on the topic already geist, and simply disagree. Seems to me you're reaching for something meaningless. I'm no physicist though, so I can't properly refute you. My objection is philosophical, and you have not addressed it.

1. An experiment is performed. It either confirms an existing theory (see 2) or finds some new effects (see 3)
2. Kudos, we've made our existing theories more accurate.
3. Let's come up with some possible theory explaining things from existing theories. If we succeed, see 4. If we fail, see 5.
4. Publish the derivation from the existing theory and see if your result has any other implications.
5. Come up with a brand new theory out of the ether (HINT: This hasn't happened since Galileo or Newton). Test to see if this new theory works. If so, see 6. If not, see 7.
6. Claim Nobel Prize
7. Return to 3.

You forgot to mention one vital step above. At step 3, you most look at your experiment setup and make sure all your assumptions are correct. That is if you neglected some effect, you must make sure that you can in fact assume the said effect to be negligible.

PhysMachine,

You wrote:

If you have a new idea about the universe, then great. Flesh it out and see if it duplicates existing theoretical and experimental results. If it does, see where it expands upon existing theories and either perform or at least provide a very detailed design of an experiment to be performed that would falsify or confirm your theory.

I have an experiment that can definetly decide it all!:
It's just a modification in the well known experiment of Davisson and Germer. But I don't have the resources to produce it. I'm just waiting for somebody who can and be interested.

Theexperiment is already described in the text. Please take a look at:SECTION 6.4: "The experiment as a proof" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm)

Even if you are interested only if the Relativity Theory is wrong or right this experiment can decide!

NOTE: It is only described shortly because it is assumed a good knowledge about Davisson-Germer experiment. A link to a description of it is provided at the home page. More information you can easily find at the internet.

That's why Physics is at the state it is.

And what kind of a state would that be? A state that every scientist finds acceptable and you don't?

From Section 6.4:
It is proposed here that the experiment at high velocities could be considered as a proof that Relativity theory is wrong because it can prove that the mass m does not vary with the velocity. The experiment will satisfy the De Broglie formula only if a constant value of m is used.

Are you talking about relativistic mass or rest mass?

Relativistic mass is horseshit and everyone who uses it is horseshit. I don't see how this proves your theory in any way.

Now let's consider relativistic mass for a moment. If a hydrogen atom was moving through the atmosphere at .99(repeat 9, 100 times)c then the hydrogren atom would have a mass greater than Earth from Earth's perspective. But freakin hell, the atom still conforms to the curvature of spacetime created by the mass of the Earth.

You forgot to mention one vital step above. At step 3, you most look at your experiment setup and make sure all your assumptions are correct. That is if you neglected some effect, you must make sure that you can in fact assume the said effect to be negligible.

This is what peer review is for.

I would like to add one thing to the rant. Professional scientists aren't just some guys off the street dicking around for the laughs. If you, as a bystander, think you've spotted something with an experiment or a theory that the've all missed - you're wrong.

This is just simple common sense. Peer review, remember? And if they did miss something, you can be assured that other physicists are already all over their shit. Like wolves at a kill. Bet on it.

Fo3,

And what kind of a state would that be? A state that every scientist finds acceptable and you don't?

Then tell me why there are so many threads in every Physics Forum discussing Relativity!

Then they get met with resistance from the existing scientific community, and develop a martyr complex. Here is the way that physics research works, more or less:
1. An experiment is performed. It either confirms an existing theory (see 2) or finds some new effects (see 3)
2. Kudos, we've made our existing theories more accurate.
3. Let's come up with some possible theory explaining things from existing theories. If we succeed, see 4. If we fail, see 5.
4. Publish the derivation from the existing theory and see if your result has any other implications.
5. Come up with a brand new theory out of the ether (HINT: This hasn't happened since Galileo or Newton). Test to see if this new theory works. If so, see 6. If not, see 7.
6. Claim Nobel Prize
7. Return to 3.


How do I skip to step 6?

How do I skip to step 6?
Get a geocities account.

Aer,

You wrote:
Relativistic mass is horseshit and everyone who uses it is horseshit. I don't see how this proves your theory in any way.

I can see you disagree with Relativity! Good!
But which is the alternative then?

I believe my theory is a good candidate...

I can see you disagree with Relativity! Good!
But which is the alternative then?

I believe my theory is a good candidate...
No, you misunderstand. I do not agree with those who retard the theory to include relativistic mass in any way. When I was taught relativity in college - there was no mention of "relativisitic mass" and rightfully so. In fact, I checked the index of my physics books which contained no reference to "relativistic mass or mass: relativisitic" awhile back. It is a retardation of the theory.

It is proposed here that the experiment at high velocities could be considered as a proof that Relativity theory is wrong because it can prove that the mass m does not vary with the velocity. The experiment will satisfy the De Broglie formula only if a constant value of m is used.

:bugeye: I guess it doesn't take any energy to move faster as well. :eek:

Relative mass was all but abandoned, due to the fact that there is no absolute frame of reference. I'm am sure we can all agree to this :D

Rest mass is easy to work with, that why we use it.

Also, concerning the wave-particle duality, when refering to mass and energy on the quantum level, I believe Richard Feynmann may be the closest to the actual truth:

From wikipedia:
In quantum electrodynamics, Richard Feynman shows the wave-particle duality of photons and electrons is an illusion. In his view, photons and electrons obey rules that share some qualities of both particles and waves. They are neither particle nor wave, but some generalized object with no direct macroscopic analog.

:bugeye: I guess it doesn't take any energy to move faster as well. :eek:

No, you have got it all wrong :) That fool is not trying to create an experiment. "The experiment as a proof", he is just saying that having come up with the experiment is proof enough.

Relative mass was all but abandoned, due to the fact that there is no absolute frame of reference. I'm am sure we can all agree to this :D

Rest mass is easy to work with, that why we use it. The idiots over on physicsforums don't think so! That is why I stopped visiting that site. The foremost experts on their relativity forum seem to think there is something significant to relativistic mass.

The idiots over on physicsforums don't think so! That is why I stopped visiting that site. The foremost experts on their relativity forum seem to think there is something significant to relativistic mass.

There is, you can never get an absolute value...it's different for everyone, everywhere, and at every speed.... :rolleyes:

Well they also claim that GR implies gravity acts like a force because of the equivalence principle. I pointed out that they were in fact refering to the "weak equivalence principle" and that there was a difference, but they just ignored that too.

Fo3,
Then tell me why there are so many threads in every Physics Forum discussing Relativity!

Because the theory of special relativity doesn't use much difficult math and it's calculations are understandable to most people. And because its implications are so counter-intuitive, that most people assume that there must be something wrong with the theory and rush to let everyone know that they have discovered a fatal flaw in physics. That is why.

I don't claim to be a physics expert, but if you looked at physics a little more closely you would see how perfectly all the pieces match in modern physics. Todays theorys make incredibly accurate predictions about nature, that are completely accordant with experiment. The predictions wouldn't be the same if the theory of special relativity would be wrong. Everything from the tinyest particles to the vast distances of the universe are perfectly accordant with eachother. And modern physics theory does a good job at describing all that. The theorys are far from being finished, but they still are incredibly accurate at places they can be used at.
Tens of thousands of very very talented physicists have worked for decades on these theorys and I can't believe that there is still someone who thinks that all of them have simply "overlooked" something and that someone who knows almost nothing about physics can fix all the problems by changing things that "don't seem right" to them.

PhysMachine and fo3: Beautiful rants. I agree completely.

That's why Physics is at the state it is.
You mean, with more accurate theories than ever? Possibly on the verge of a unified physical theory? I'd say it's in a pretty fucking good state.

You guys simply don't understand what is going on.

I'm not trying to impose anything to you.
I started this thread as an advice to anyone really interested in Physics development that something could change soon in the main theories and you can participate if you want to. It's a chance to do something important in Physics.

I found several new interpretations for some experiments and found a really new point of view that seems to be in agreement with all the main experiments already done. This deserves an opportunity to be analyzed by you and I strongly believe it will worth for you too.

But you simply give answers without even looking at the site. I understand that the internet is full of alternative theories that doesn't go much further and you don't want to waste your time, but I insist because this one really have a chance!

One important thing I discovered is a modified version of the Davisson-Germer experiment for high velocities (See Sections 6.3 and 6.4)) that can be done and can really decide if Relativity is right or wrong! I cannot make it!

Nobody interested here? I can't believe...

It is an almost daily occurrence that particles are accelerated near the speed of light in acceleraters. Special relativity is one of the most accurately confirmed theories ever devised, mostly because it's so counterintuitive. If you want to ignore a century of experimental work, then suit yourself. I'm convinced, as are most credible scientists on the planet.

The new theories also agree with those experiments!

Is obvious you haven't read it.

I obviously disagree.




*sigh*

There is no evidence of an "absolute frame of the universe". Even if you had that evidence, how do you know it's not moving in relation to something else?

You're missing the point, but that's okay. Other posters have much more relevant criticisms. I'm out of here.
Westmorris,
Your arguments are missing some content. So what if the molecule didn't crash into the other molecule, there were trillions of other molecules that did.

Westmorris, what the hey is so difficult to assess than the absolute zero motion of a point in space. This means only a recognized point that doesn't move. The point is the frame, it isn't on a frame. The universe doesn't care if we've found it and we have, though some fail to recognize the point.

It seems that you've glommed onto some ideas that you chose to expand. If you aren't a physicist why do you chose to believe one sect over another? Is it cool to believe in SRT because it is "counter intuitive" and you know how to do that? Or you've fopund a rfeasonable facsimile of god so you quit looking. Do you actually demean those you are discussing SRT with because they cannot seem to shake the tradional world they were accustomed to and that has proved to be the one and only?

Why do you use words you aren't knowledgeable on the usage of? You probably consider yourself a philospher? Superluminal would normally nail you to your own cross, but, you seem to say the right words of aggreement so you are tolerated. In other words, SL agrees with those that agree with him, 0thers, he ridicules even though he has never seen the other side of the road. SL is in an agreement circle he is come fortable with though he does confess to a severe state or condition of masochism, he likes the pain,(its probably a sex thing) "then everything gonna be alright" as the song goes. Me thinks he smokes too much, it makes him cough and it reminds him of the favorite body part of shit smokers when they hand the dube to another, "eer!"

But you have a place to discuss ideas and to be accepted, so believe pilgrim, President Bush will make everything allright, a funky war that we can all believe in as correct, the war and the precious SRT that is that we fight, evil.
But , as Aer remarked, I am rambling, yes the Texas Rose.

Geistkiesel :cool:

I've read most of your stuff on the topic already geist, and simply disagree. Seems to me you're reaching for something meaningless. I'm no physicist though, so I can't properly refute you. My objection is philosophical, and you have not addressed it.

So if I am reaching for something meaningless, what is that exactly that you see I reach for?

Geistkiesel :cool:

Aer,

You wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I do not agree with those who retard the theory to include relativistic mass in any way. When I was taught relativity in college - there was no mention of "relativisitic mass" and rightfully so. In fact, I checked the index of my physics books which contained no reference to "relativistic mass or mass: relativisitic" awhile back. It is a retardation of the theory.

Relativity implies the relativistic mass that varies with velocity by the factor s=root(1-v2/c2).
If you propose Lorentz Transforms with constant mass then is another new theory you areproposing!

UnderWhelmed,

“ It is proposed here that the experiment at high velocities could be considered as a proof that Relativity theory is wrong because it can prove that the mass m does not vary with the velocity. The experiment will satisfy the De Broglie formula only if a constant value of m is used. ”



I guess it doesn't take any energy to move faster as well.

Of course it will need more energy related to the equation KE=mv2/2

Much sarcasm, poor significance...

Aer,

Also, concerning the wave-particle duality, when refering to mass and energy on the quantum level, I believe Richard Feynmann may be the closest to the actual truth:

From wikipedia:

“ In quantum electrodynamics, Richard Feynman shows the wave-particle duality of photons and electrons is an illusion. In his view, photons and electrons obey rules that share some qualities of both particles and waves. They are neither particle nor wave, but some generalized object with no direct macroscopic analog. ”

Today Physics can't explain what is happening and call this the "wave-particle duality". Obviously is a mystery but I have already solved it! Take a look!

fo3,

Originally Posted by martillo
Fo3,
Then tell me why there are so many threads in every Physics Forum discussing Relativity! ”



Because the theory of special relativity doesn't use much difficult math and it's calculations are understandable to most people. And because its implications are so counter-intuitive, that most people assume that there must be something wrong with the theory and rush to let everyone know that they have discovered a fatal flaw in physics.

And they are right. Relativity is full of inconsistent "paradoxes". In Mathematics these are called contradictions.

those have a GOOD Physical intuition. They are intuitively right!

[indent]Westmorris,
Your arguments are missing some content.

I've provided content elsewhere which you always ignored. We can discuss it here then, that's fine.

So what if the molecule didn't crash into the other molecule, there were trillions of other molecules that did.

I don't see the relevance at all as I'll explain below. It seems to me you have some very strange notions.

Westmorris, what the hey is so difficult to assess than the absolute zero motion of a point in space. This means only a recognized point that doesn't move.

I understand the intended meaning, but find it short-sighted. How can you know a point isn't moving? You can take it as a convention, sure... but that isn't "absolute", it's presumption. You could verify it from every other point in the universe, sure... but you have no way to verify if what you think of as the universe itself hasn't changed in property or isn't itself moving. Given that you cannot at this juncture, even properly define the extents of the universe, you run into a problem. Further, how does absolute motion fit into the notion of an expanding universe?

The point is the frame, it isn't on a frame.

Who says it is? The issue is relative motion right? It's the label "absolute" the renders the term pointless.

The universe doesn't care if we've found it and we have, though some fail to recognize the point.

Of course not. It's the structure of the universe that's the object of the model of it no? Maybe you've "found it" maybe you haven't. Saying "some fail to recognize the point" regarding theories that haven't withstood the rigors of criticism of the scientific community - stinks of arrogance and immaturity. If your theory is so damned good, it would be irrefutable. Maybe people just aren't ready for your awesomeness! It's certainly true in my case. Well, some people are ready. :)

It seems that you've glommed onto some ideas that you chose to expand. If you aren't a physicist why do you chose to believe one sect over another?

I'm an engineer. I understand science and respect the process. There is a theory that has withstood it. While it's obviously incomplete, I see no flaw in its logic, and see many with yours like that which we are currently discussing. That and it's painfully clear that almost everyone I've seen complain about SRT or whatever almost always displays a comprehension that appears to me as not at all what SRT is, but some misunderstanding they can't get past. MacM is a prime example. I just don't think the idea of space-time or its basic implications fit in many people's heads, and feel confident that I have a basic understanding of it. If people would reject it for reasons that clearly show problems with it, that might change my mind... but to this point no one on this site who complains about it has demonstrated to me that they understand it well enough to criticize it. I don't mean that as if "I'm the expert". I just mean per my basic understanding, your basic understanding and that of a few others is just wrong and I have no idea how to explain it any more clearly than I have in my thousands of words trying to explain it to mac. James can't even get through to him, and his explanations are far more clear than my own. So many have tried, and so many failed to get through the shell constructed to protect the alternative theories. Bah, regardless... IMO, one must demonstrate they understand what they're criticizing and no one critizing has done so thus far. It's the notion of space-time and its implications that seem to trip people up and cause them to reject it before they've even gotten in far enough to actually criticize something meaningful.

Is it cool to believe in SRT because it is "counter intuitive" and you know how to do that?

What does "cool" have to do with it? Do you think I'd tentatively accept a theory about the nature of space and time because it's "cool"? Conversely, do you think it's "uncool" because it is "counter intuitive" and you simply don't know how to do that?

Or you've fopund a rfeasonable facsimile of god so you quit looking.

Seems like what you've done. Myself, I think string theory is the most promising theory, but obviously it's not complete either. I can accept that for now, SRT (which is brilliant) is the best thing going and I'm excited to see how things go in this area.

Do you actually demean those you are discussing SRT with because they cannot seem to shake the tradional world they were accustomed to and that has proved to be the one and only?

Where the hell did that come from? You're being absolutist. I demean you for it since you're kind enough to suggest it. I think you're emotionally attached to rejecting SRT. You hate it for whatever reason, and now you don't know anything but hating it, so you continue. You're falling into the simplest, most seductive trap of humanity - you're anthropomorphizing SRT.

Why do you use words you aren't knowledgeable on the usage of?

Show where I've done that. It's not a very kind accusation.

You probably consider yourself a philospher?

Why wouldn't I?

Superluminal would normally nail you to your own cross, but, you seem to say the right words of aggreement so you are tolerated.

I have no idea what you're talking about. SL happens to think I'm a brilliant bastard. He LOVES me. He wants me to be his bitch but I won't allow it. Hehe. Seriously though, what the shit are you on about? What cross did I put up that I should be nailed to?

In other words, SL agrees with those that agree with him, 0thers, he ridicules even though he has never seen the other side of the road. SL is in an agreement circle he is come fortable with though he does confess to a severe state or condition of masochism, he likes the pain,(its probably a sex thing) "then everything gonna be alright" as the song goes.

So now you, who seems obviously biased by your previous interactions with him, are kind enough to psycho-analyze him right here in our precious forum for everyone to see? Your kindness is unbounded, but your analysis SO goddamned irrelevant. Maybe it was just supposed to be funny. I got lost there trying to figure out why you were talking about that.

Me thinks he smokes too much, it makes him cough and it reminds him of the favorite body part of shit smokers when they hand the dube to another, "eer!"

Uhm... okay. I have no idea what he does or does not do too much.

But you have a place to discuss ideas and to be accepted, so believe pilgrim, President Bush will make everything allright, a funky war that we can all believe in as correct, the war and the precious SRT that is that we fight, evil.

So now I'm a coolaid drinker eh? You're wrong.

Relativity is full of inconsistent "paradoxes".

I've never seen a relativity paradox, please provide an example.

Relativity is full of inconsistent "paradoxes".

I've never seen a relativity paradox, please provide an example.
I'm not claiming to agree or disagree that relativity produces paradoxes, but here is the abstract from this article (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000055000010000943000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes):

A thought experiment is proposed in which a moving conducting shuttle encounters a gap between two conducting rails connected at one end through a bulb and a source of steady voltage. A naive application of length contraction leads to contradictory results when the encounter is examined from the rail and the shuttle frames, viz., that the bulb should switch off in one frame but should keep glowing in the other. However the interaction between the shuttle and the gap is so arranged that it is possible to analyze the experiment quantitatively in both the Lorentz frames within the framework of elementary relativistic kinematics. It is shown that the results of such a calculation lead to an exact agreement between the observed effects in the two frames. The article includes an Appendix that contains a compact bibliography of several of the paradoxes in the theory of relativity.

Relativity implies the relativistic mass that varies with velocity by the factor s=root(1-v2/c2).
No. People with horseshit for brains retard the E=γmc² equation to be E=m_rc² where m_r is relativistic mass. Mass doesn't even come into play in the lorentz transfomations.


If you propose Lorentz Transforms with constant mass then is another new theory you areproposing! Wrong, you just misunderstand the theory.


Today Physics can't explain what is happening and call this the "wave-particle duality". Obviously is a mystery but I have already solved it! Take a look! I very much doubt that you've come up with an accurate theory all on your own.


I've provided content elsewhere which you always ignored. We can discuss it here then, that's fine. Ha! You might as well recite the phone book in your posts to Geistkeisel. He is a dipshit as I've shown elsewhere.

One must be a subscriber to view the contents of that article - do you have the details?

Most of the so-called paradoxes of length contraction are misunderstandings of simultaneity. However, the author does claim to show the calculations, so it would be very interesting to see his math before making any assumptions.

Today Physics can't explain what is happening and call this the "wave-particle duality". Obviously is a mystery but I have already solved it! Take a look!

This is a fine example of why there are so many relativity threads on this forum. People find a theory not to be logical and then claim it to be false. Tell me one good reason why the microscopical world should be describable by the principles we are used to using in our everyday life? Why do tou think there is something wrong with the wave-particle duality? If something doesn't have a macroscopical equivalent, then it doesn't mean that it can't exist in the microscopical world.

So if I am reaching for something meaningless, what is that exactly that you see I reach for?

Geistkiesel :cool:

To describe "absolute motion". IMO, the term itself is a misnomer, as all motion is relative to something else. The concept itself is meaningless as "I'm going this fast" makes no sense unless you add "compared to this". When the "this" is claimed to be "the universe", my objections in my previous pose apply.

One must be a subscriber to view the contents of that article - do you have the details?

Most of the so-called paradoxes of length contraction are misunderstandings of simultaneity. However, the author does claim to show the calculations, so it would be very interesting to see his math before making any assumptions.
Nope, I have not read anything but the abstract which is why I said I cannot agree or disagree with it.

Aer,

“ Originally Posted by martillo
Relativity implies the relativistic mass that varies with velocity by the factor s=root(1-v2/c2). ”


No. People with horseshit for brains retard the E=γmc2 equation to be E=mrc2 where mr is relativistic mass. Mass doesn't even come into play in the lorentz transfomations.


“ Originally Posted by martillo
If you propose Lorentz Transforms with constant mass then is another new theory you areproposing! ”

Wrong, you just misunderstand the theory.

No, I understand the theory very well. Einstein do associate the factor gamma to mass! He does it in his own book!
You are trying to disassociating it and doing this you are inventing a new theory!

Just for curiosity, you relates the factor gamma to what then?

Einstein do associate the factor gamma to mass!
Einstein wasn't always the brightest :D :m:

Provide the reference for where Einstein does this (I do not doubt that he did, I just want to look it up).

Aer,

“ Originally Posted by martillo
Today Physics can't explain what is happening and call this the "wave-particle duality". Obviously is a mystery but I have already solved it! Take a look! ”

I very much doubt that you've come up with an accurate theory all on your own.

You doubt but I did it!!!

Just for curiosity, you relates the factor gamma to what then?
The energy-mass equation is:

E=&gamma;mc² = mc² + 1/2 mv² for v << c

So as you can see, E=mc² by itself is a measure of an objects internal energy, think of it as the mass form of energy.

And the &gamma; factor is a measure of the kinetic energy.

Q,

I've never seen a relativity paradox, please provide an example.

I can't believe this!

The twins paradox means you something? Never heard?
.

Q,



I can't believe this!

The twins paradox means you something? Never heard?

I don't think this is a real paradox, it is simpily a result of travelling near speed of light.

Yep, UnderWhelmed is correct. It is just called a paradox because the twins are suppose to be the same age by definition but after the trip are many years separated in age.

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!

Aer,

And the γ factor is a measure of the kinetic energy.

This is your own proposition. You are creating a new definition for energy!
You are inventing a new theory.

An example is De Broglie law: λ = h/mv that is not invariant

This is your quote from the section 1.2 "CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST RELATIVITY"

Does special relativity apply to waves?

This is your own proposition. You are creating a new definition for energy!
You are inventing a new theory.
No I'm not. That is the energy equation and interpretation as I was taught in college physics. Whatever you read on the internet or elsewhere is wrong. And if you migrated over from physicsforums... they are all wrong over there too. Fucking morons.

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!

Your assuming that there is an absolute frame of reference in which to base your contradiction on! :D

Q,



I can't believe this!

The twins paradox means you something? Never heard?
.

It's not a paradox. In fact, it can be explained several ways.

Underwhelmed,

De Broglie law applies to matter. I particulary mention there the wave-lenght asssociated to electrons in the Davisson-Germer experiment.

Aer,

“ Originally Posted by martillo
Einstein do associate the factor gamma to mass! ”


Einstein wasn't always the brightest

Provide the reference for where Einstein does this (I do not doubt that he did, I just want to look it up).

The best reference is Einstein's own book. I have the spanish translation: "Sobre la Teoría de la Relatividad Especial y General" what is traduced to something like: "About the Special and general Relativity Theories" (I don't know the exact title for the english version).

UnderWhelmed,

“ Originally Posted by martillo
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! ”



Your assuming that there is an absolute frame of reference in which to base your contradiction on!

No I'm not!. There's no need for an absolute referential.

Underwhelmed,

De Broglie law applies to matter. I particulary mention there the wave-lenght asssociated to electrons in the Davisson-Germer experiment.

I can't say for sure, perhaps someone else can confirm this, but I believe λ = h/mv refers to wave length...

UnderWhelmed,



No I'm not!. There's no necessity of an absolute referential.

Well when you say one frame is right and one is wrong, that implies that there is an absolute frame to which base all assumption off of.

Relativity shows that all frames are correct, even if they contradict one another... ;)

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!

I assume both referentials as correct possible referentials but the RESULTS are opposite.

and?

and contradiction means a wrong theory!

UnderWhelmed,

“ Originally Posted by martillo
Underwhelmed,

De Broglie law applies to matter. I particulary mention there the wave-lenght asssociated to electrons in the Davisson-Germer experiment. ”



I can't say for sure, perhaps someone else can confirm this, but I believe λ = h/mv refers to wave length...

...to a wave-lenght associated to electrons that can be measured by the Davisson-Germer experiment.

What's the problem???

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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. (http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm)

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. :rolleyes:

"A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics) 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?

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?

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... :D

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.

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

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

Every rejection of SRT I've seen shares this struggle.

No problem with the simultaneity. In Relativity the same instant have different numerical time values measured in both referentials but related with the Lorentz Transform.

Which means, of course, that they don't agree that there is such an "instant", and that there is therefore no contradiction.

martillo:

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.

Firstly, you never stated if they were travelling away from each other or not. Secondly you never stated what reference frame were watching this little thought experiment of yours in.


Applying Relativity to them we will see that one is getting older than the other.

Can you prove this? Calculations? Frames...etc?!

But we can freely choose the referential of one of the two guys as the first one.

:bugeye:

For Relativity any referential is equivalent to study every phenomena of Nature.

Yes, you can study every phenomena of nature from any reference frame, BUT, depending on on your speed and your frame things will look different. Its not a Contradition, its just a result of travelling at different speeds, etc...if you don't understand this then I doubt that you'll get very far with relativity.

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...

ummmm, no....your confusing frames again. You can't switch frames back and forth in order to prove your point.

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

I tried to read this and it went something like this. :eek: :bugeye: Please try to explain by using proper english and grammer...

The Theory is wrong

You haven't proven this. You have only shown that you don't understand some of the basic concepts of relativity.

Have a nice day

I have made a very well explanation for who has enough knowledge about Special Relativity issues.



Calculations? Frames...etc?!

Make your own or aren't you capable? It's too easy.



ummmm, no....your confusing frames again. You can't switch frames back and forth in order to prove your point.

Ofcourse I can. I'm considering the contradictory results of both frames.



You have only shown that you don't understand some of the basic concepts of relativity.

I do.

Sorry if this appears off topic but I really have no interest in reading this monolith of absurdity.

Anyway, I was just wondering if the "death of modern physics" meant that future physicists would call their collection of theories describing the universe something other than "modern physics".

Which means, of course, that they don't agree that there is such an "instant", and that there is therefore no contradiction.

Of course such instant exist. It's the same "thing" just seen by different frames!

The contradiction also exist.

May be both were accelerated for some time but now they are travelling at a constant velocity v between them.... 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...

Now that they are travelling at the same velocity, their clocks will tick at the same rate.

One does not 'get younger,' btw. Both will age, however the twin that has accelerated away will age slower than the one that remained.

This thread is almost as useless as watching JamesR and MacM fight back and forth ;)

I'm out...

Q,

May be you just don't pay attention...

I assume they do have some velocity relative to each other. It doesn't matter the direction.
Accordingly to Relativity if they have a relative velocity their time is different and one will get older and the other younger.
The problem is that depending simply in which referential we choose ( of one of the space-ships or the other one) the results are opposite. Always "the other guy" gets younger!

It's too obvious. No calculations are needed to see it.

Bye Aer, Bye Underwhelmed, you have not been friendly, don't expect me to be.

What about me? i have not been friendly either :p

Dilbert,

Anyone answers accordingly on how he was asked. It's a natural reaction.

But sometimes we didn't have a nice day...

You called me "a fool". May be I'm wasting my time.

You decide.

Q,

May be you just don't pay attention...

I assume they do have some velocity relative to each other. It doesn't matter the direction.
Accordingly to Relativity if they have a relative velocity their time is different and one will get older and the other younger.
The problem is that depending simply in which referential we choose ( of one of the space-ships or the other one) the results are opposite. Always "the other guy" gets younger!

It's too obvious. No calculations are needed to see it.

Sure, but it's not reflective of observations. The observations and the theory both support that one's "rate of time" is always the same locally, but the present here isn't the present over there if over there is in another inertial reference frame. So your "assumption" is simply wrong, as demonstrated by observation of muons, the clock in orbit experiment, etc.

You seem to assume yourself a genius of the utmost caliber, when you obviously don't even understand that which you criticize. Further, you deny correction when your mistakes are demonstrated and corrected.

*sigh*

You are another MacM.

...
Hearing at all of you I can understand how a Physic's LIE can survive for 100 years....You don't worry about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. You really don't care about the truth. You simply read, memorize and repeat every wroten thing in every "pretty book" and behaves as you know it all (in a sarcastic style of course)....

So do U feel alienated ?

Do U feel like U r living among Neanderthals ?

Do U think this is a Planet of arogant Apes ?

So what is the soultion of this human problem ?

Oooohhh!

I seem to assume I am a genius...

But you are one of those who really KNOW about all this ehhh?

There is, you can never get an absolute value...it's different for everyone, everywhere, and at every speed.... :rolleyes:

So do think that is the reason for different people having different theories. :p :D

Absolute motion is not possible ?

Yet speed of light remains constant for all observers ?

Forget the observer and speed of light is faster than speed of light, we have to devise a method to confirm this ?

Anomalous,

So what is the soultion of this human problem ?

There's no fast solution. I believe it's about individuals attitude in front of some assertions and the attitude depends strongly in what everyone has learned and the questions we ask ourselves.

Have you realized that all this messages posted haven't took the owners more than a minute to think about the subject and write the answers?

But I know that not all that read the thread do that. There are some who really THINK. That's why I'm still posting.

Anomalous,

Absolute motion is not possible ?

Yet speed of light remains constant for all observers ?

Forget the observer and speed of light is faster than speed of light, we have to devise a method to confirm this ?

Please take a look on my web page: "A New Light in Physics" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics)
You will have my answers to these questions and more!

... Tell me one good reason why the microscopical world should be describable by the principles we are used to using in our everyday life? Why do tou think there is something wrong with the wave-particle duality?... When are you going to learn, you all sound like kids to me, blind kids. Waves of light is justa illusion of the real thing, think three dimansionally, http://www.lighttheory.com/experiments.htm

I apologise for the below post in advance.

The energy-mass equation is:...

consider me as a medical student and dosent know how to count but my logical and wrong conclusion is

E=MC square

hence C = squareroot of E/M

increase the E and you increase the C automatically.

Oh, yes, I agree. But that's not the twin 'paradox', then. but MACM says that satellites in orbits loose some time ?

When are you going to learn, you all sound like kids to me, blind kids

So, what is your description of light? Keep it simple for us kids please.

BLA BLA BLA. This devil women is a moderator in that primitive science Form called PHYSICSFORUMS, She is an alien and is worried that humans might break the light speed barrier. Go back from where U came U be***.

I'm editing this post a long time after because the first one contained a WRONG consideration and the author don't want future readers to consider it.

The link "anomalous" provided contains a description of an experiment that after a more detailed analysis is found to be bad interpreted.

Now I interpret the experiment as a variation of the well known "Standing Wave Hertz Experiment". The particular shapes illustrated seem to be a consequence of the "plate" used to detect radiation's energy at each point.
It can be said that "the plate interferes in the experiment"


Actually is not a proof for the photons to be a composition of two particles of opposite charge.

This thread is almost as useless as watching JamesR and MacM fight back and forth ;)

I'm out... Useless to U, obviously, because If U agree with it, then U will be known as among the greatest morohons science has ever seen. U all Relativist sound like preist of dark ages with Bible written by Eienstien, specially the moderators from the crap forum called PHYSICSFORUMS.

although, JAMES R is among the best mods I have ever seen.

Sure, .., the clock in orbit experiment, etc... Can U show your Googeling skill to produce a link about it ?

I apologise for the below post in advance. I apologize for my response below in advance.



consider me as a medical student and dosent know how to count but my logical and wrong conclusion is

E=MC square

hence C = squareroot of E/M

increase the E and you increase the C automatically.
I'm out the door and going to a new hospital.

Oooohhh!

I seem to assume I am a genius...

But you are one of those who really KNOW about all this ehhh?

Actually no, but I know enough to see your error. It's hard to get the idea of relativity of simultenaety. It's must easier to just reject it because you don't get it and think you already know how things should be, as you are obviously doing. It's typical. It does however indicate that you haven't a clue what your'e criticizing, yet you still apparently feel vindicated in your criticism, thus.. you're another crackpot asshat with a superiority complex. *shrug*

My objection is that you obviously don't understand what SRT says in basic terms, so what you're criticizing is your own mistaken impresson of it, rather than it. In the model of space-time utilized by SRT, it's my understanding that space time itself is stretched and bent by energy/mass. Since time is part of what is bent and stretched, "now" only makes sense in terms of a particular space-time coordinate. Thus, your idea of paradox is fundamentally flawed.

Of course the odds are that it's completely pointless to tell you this, as your superiority complex will mandate that I go fuck myself.

Good luck.

Bye Aer.
Bye.

Wesmorris,

...your superiority complex will mandate that I go fuck myself.

I will not do that and I don't have such complex.

The problem is that you are convinced that I'm wrong while I'm convinced I'm right.
I'm just defending my point of view.

Wesmorris,



I will not do that and I don't have such complex.

The problem is that you are convinced that I'm wrong while I'm convinced I'm right.
I'm just defending my point of view.

I don't care if you're wrong or right. I'd rather you be right. Unfortunately though, even my miniscule comprehension of SRT and GR allows me to see that you don't understand them. If you did, you wouldn't assert what you do about contradictions for instance. Thus, you ARE wrong... it's not me thinking you are, you can't demonstrate a basic comprehension of the theory you're saying is incorrect.

How can you know it's not right if you don't even understand it?

You don't.

Thus, you come up with your own way of explaining things. That's fine, but you're saying that the existing ideas are wrong. Until you can demonstrate you understand what they say, even in the basic concepts... where is your basis for criticism?

I don't see it.

Wesmorris,

...you can't demonstrate a basic comprehension of the theory you're saying is incorrect.

How do you know what I know and what I don't?

You say that just because I have put a simple problem in a very simple manner?

Why don't you expose your solution to the problem in a similar simple way?

You prefer to spend 90% of your words in comments about myself!

Relativity is a rather easy concept to understand.

2 objects in relative motion can each consider themself at rest independently. In doing so, the rest object sees the other's clock dilated and spatial length contracted. This observation is reciprical when each observer considers themself at rest.

When a Muon and Earth are two objects in relative motion, distance is only contracted for the Muon because the atmosphere in which it is "moving through" is "moving with the Earth". There is no reciprical effect in this case because that wouldn't make sense.

And finally, when an object approaches c, the spatial contraction between two distance objects as measured from the frame that sees said object traveling near c, goes to 0 for the moving object. The object approaching c does not experience the same type of length contraction as the Muon above, because that just wouldn't make any sense - how could the distance possibly be close to 0?

Let me add the twin paradox for good measure. Two objects in relative motion meet at some point in time. In order for them to meet, one of the objects had to undergo an acceleration for the return trip to begin. The object that accelerated experiences the "real" time dilation/length contraction effect because, well, he accelerated.

See, easy to understand, where is the problem?

Aer,

2 objects in relative motion can each consider themself at rest independently. In doing so, the rest object sees the other's clock dilated and spatial length contracted. This observation is reciprical when each observer considers themself at rest.

In the case of two guys travelling can you know who is getting older and who is getting younger?

Age is an important concept in the considered problem.

In the case of two guys travelling can you know who is getting older and who is getting younger? I just told you - the guy who accelerated ;)
Why?
Because he accelerated. Duh.

Aer,

In the case of two guys travelling can you know who is getting older and who is getting younger?

Neither is getting younger.

Age is an important concept in the considered problem.

*sigh*

wemorris, martillo's native language is not English (I don't think). You have to forgive him if he fails to word things just right.

wemorris, martillo's native language is not English (I don't think). You have to forgive him if he fails to word things just right.

You don't think it's a conceptual problem rather than language?

Either way, doesn't the guy who is accelerated age less than the guy who isn't? So the one on earth would age more than one who was accelerated and came back..., once they're both back in the same frame.

You don't think it's a conceptual problem rather than language? Honestly, I don't really care.


Either way, doesn't the guy who is accelerated age less than the guy who [doesn't accelerate]? So the one on earth would age more than one who was accelerated and came back..., once they're both back in the same frame.
That's correct.

May be you just don't pay attention...

Up yours.

one will get older and the other younger.

You are a complete idiot - people do not get younger.

You are a complete idiot - people do not get younger.
Ever hear of the fountain of youth?! :m:

Yes, I have actually - the Horsepucky River empties into it.

Older and younger respect to the other guy of course!
You just want to find something on what to joke isn't it?

Ok I'm back!

Older and younger respect to the other guy of course!
You just want to find something on what to joke isn't it?

Nevermind, this is retarded...I'm out again :cool:

“ Age is an important concept in the considered problem. ”



*sigh*


The dictionary gives to me the same meaning I gave to "age": "Lenght of life".

Where is the problem?

The word 'age' can be used as a noun and a verb. You have used it as a noun.

To 'age' means to grow older - used as a verb.

If I say that I am aging, it means I am growing older.

You however said 'younger" - and no one grows younger, not even near the speed of light.

Hence, it is one twin 'aging' slower than the other. One twin is growing older slower than the other.

Kapeesh?

Anomalous,...

Is the experiment yours?

NO.

BELOW is the most perfect and most important statement of all in Relativity. I CHALLENEGE U all to disprove it. If U dont then Shame on U.

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.

Honestly, I don't really care... 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.

“ Originally Posted by martillo
In the case of two guys travelling can you know who is getting older and who is getting younger? ”

I just told you - the guy who accelerated
Why?
Because he accelerated. Duh.

I think is not so easy.
In Relativity velocities and accelerations are both relative magnitudes and they cannot make difference.

May be UnderWhelmed was right in that I should have presented a more detailed problem...

I have thought an example to illustrate how the contradiction arises.

Give me just a moment to present it.

Here is the thought experiment.

To not consider the movement of Hearth we will think in a mother-ship that goes to the most "fixed place" you can imagine. May be some point at a fixed position relative to the known "fixed stars of the Universe.

The mother-ship goes there brakes and stop remaining there. After that, two small space-ships with twins accelerate in opposite directions, travel some time and brake in the same manner making a perfect symmetric travel to stop at some far distance.
After that, they turn their space-ships in the opposite direction and at some time (may be synchronized by the mother-ship that is at equal distance from them) they accelerate and travel in a second symmetrical flight deviating a negligible little (to not collide) just to pass very near of them and the mother-ship at the same instant but they don't brake!.
The intention is to capture the movement as they are flying at some considerable velocity to detect some relativistic effects.

We must consider that the state of both twins can be directly observed by them and by the people in the mother-ship! For example photographs can be taken at the instant of "crossing" and be sent to everybody, even the twins!

Now the situation is:
Both are travelling at some velocity v but in opposite directions just in front of the mother-ship.

Now we will apply Lorentz Transform to the twins to see how they are aging. For simplicity we will consider time zero this instant they are in front of the mother-ship.
First we choose a referential in the mother-ship pointing in the same direction as the velocity of one of the twins. We must replace x=+vt and x=-vt for each twin in the equations of time.
We assume k = (1-v2/c2)exp-1/2
Then for one twin we will have (x=+vt):
t' = k(1-v2/c2)t = t/k
and for the other (x=-vt):
t' = k(1+v2/c2)t

We can see that for each twin time t' is different what means they age differently. The first one is smaller what means the first twin will get younger than the other.
But the direction of the referential was arbitrary choused with the velocity of one of the twin! If we select the other twin the equations are inverted and that twin will get now older than the other!
This means opposite contradictory results.

Now we will consider the problem as seen by the twins themselves. they see each other travelling at a velocity w (classicaly is 2v but with the relativistic addition of velocities is something different) chousing the directions of the referentials as the directions of the relative velocity.
For them we must consider k = (1-w2/c2)exp-1/2
Then for both twins we will have the same:
t' = t/k

This means that for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself.
This means also opposite contradictory results.

We must also note that the rate of aging is different as seen in the mothership than seen by the twins.

We must pay attention that they have made a perfect symetrical travel, they accelerated the same amount, they traveled at the same velocity for the same time so there's no privileged direction in the experiment to decide for one of the cases.

We also note with some surprise that the results for the mother-ship referential is not the same aging as we would expect in this totally symmetric problem.


Do you "kapeesh" the contradictions of the problem now?



I wish I was clear enough.

Now we will apply Lorentz Transform

To which frame? Remember that there are three reference frames.

We assume k = (1-v2/c2)exp-1/2
Then for one twin we will have (x=+vt):
t' = k(1-v2/c2)t = t/k
and for the other (x=-vt):
t' = k(1+v2/c2)t

That's the Lorentz transform equations for shifting coordinates to one of the twins' frames, specifically the twin moving to the 'right' along the x-axis (i.e. with velocity v wrt. the mothershpi). Of course, he doesn't see the other as being in synch with himself. The one moving to the 'left' along the x-axis as seen from the mothership has the following transform for the time coordinate

t' = &gamma;(t + vx/c²)

Plug in x=-vt and you get t/&gamma;. So observers at the mothership see them time dilate equally.

Clear?

funkstar,

The one moving to the 'left' along the x-axis as seen from the mothership has the following transform for the time coordinate

t' = γ(t + vx/c2)

Plug in x=-vt and you get t/γ. So observers at the mothership see them time dilate equally.

Clear?

I disagree.
We cannot chouse a particular referential for each twin.
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.

Nevertheless still a difference with what the twins observe exists.

Excuse me, seeing as there seems to be a bit of a bun fight going on I thought I'd add my 2 cents worth........now where did I put my wallet..?...hmmmmmm............ahhh here it is.
Martillo,
Can I ask how you theory accomodates the invariance of light to all observers with out a loss of simultaneity?

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_S,t_S) from the S frame to spacetime coordinates (x_A,t_A) in the frame A are

x_A=&gamma;(x_S-vt_S)
t_A=&gamma;(t_S-vx_S/c²)

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_S,t_S) from the S frame to spacetime coordinates (x_B,t_B) in the frame B are

x_B=&gamma;(x_S+vt_S)
t_B=&gamma;(t_S+vx_S/c²)

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.

funkstar,

It's not a matter of opinion.

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.

Quantum Quack,

Can I ask how you theory accomodates the invariance of light to all observers with out a loss of simultaneity?

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.

So, you were mixing frames. It's a classic mistake

I'm not mixing frames, I'm considering the results in all frames and comparing them.

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

martillo:

I'm not mixing frames, I'm considering the results in all frames and comparing them.

That's mixing frames.

Is not.

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

The first principle of Relativity!

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_S,t_S) from the S frame to spacetime coordinates (x_A,t_A) in the frame A are

x_A=&gamma;(x_S-vt_S)
t_A=&gamma;(t_S-vx_S/c²)

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_S,t_S) from the S frame to spacetime coordinates (x_B,t_B) in the frame B are

x_B=&gamma;(x_S+vt_S)
t_B=&gamma;(t_S+vx_S/c²)

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.

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...

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

Is not.

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

The first principle of Relativity!

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...

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.
The Lorentz transformation equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformations) 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.

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.


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!

UnderWhelmed,

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

UnderWhelmed,

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

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:

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!

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.

You have found a way to compensate the difference found but is mathematically wrong.

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_S, twin A is at x_S = vt_S and twin B is at x_S= -vt_S.

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

t_A=&gamma;(t_S-vx_S/c²)

Giving you for twin A in frame A:

t_A=t_S/&gamma;

and for twin B in frame A:

t_A=&gamma;t_S(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!

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.

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.
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.

How can U not care , That Wesmorris is saying that Satellites are ageing less, they are in orbit and not even accelarating,

*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.

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!

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.

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!

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."

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