About "A New Light In Physics"

Good! Then that will show you what's going on.

Again, that is true even for the standard twin paradox. (The traveling twin sees the Earth twin as moving at some velocity, thus aging less.) He would always see that if he continued in his inertial frame. But he does not; he decelerates, stops and accelerates back to Earth. In doing so, he changes his inertial frame, which is why he returns older than his twin.

In your example BOTH twins change their inertial frames, and thus lose their previous inertial frame in which they see each other aging more slowly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They lose the initial frame and gain a new one to start the same thing again...
I will not demonstrate your Minkowsky diagram análisis wrong if that is what you want. I'm not expert on them but not needed. Only add complexity from my point of view and so I will not even try. Good luck with them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. From each twin's perspective, there is a big "gap" in the other's aging. Due to the change in simultaneity from the instant change in speed, much of the other's timeline is not observable. So A sees B aging more slowly. Then there is a gap - and suddenly B is much older. As they approach each other, their apparent ages become closer and closer, until they are identical at the moment they pass each other.

An instantaneous change is impossible, of course. With any sane acceleration, A would see B aging rapidly during the turnover.

OK, I will do it for you.

The center line is the stationary observer (your mother ship.) The diamond are the two twins heading out and back. The diagonal lines are the planes of simultaneity of each of the two twins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You insist but as I said I will not analyze Minkowsky Diagrams Good luck with them.

 

Why won't you?

 

We have had at least a dozen "would be's if they could be's"claiming to invalidate SR/GR in my time here: This is just another dreamer/hoaxer.

 

No, there's a difference, I really did it. It's just a matter of time now and is just up to you to get in or out, it's your decision. A new Physics must come, is needed, is obvious, and here is the beginning, believe it or not. For me at this time, I have nothing to win, to late now, but nothing to lose... For you, who knows...

 

It must be read as "..., too late now,..." in the previous post...

 

I think martillo should be going back to the drawing board, which all of us have had to do from time to time over the years, right? I hope that if we expand his discussion about Special Relativity to pertain to General Relativity, and then on to the supposition that there are quantum mechanics of nature at work, he can more fully appreciate what relativity is, and what it is not.

So I'll venture in by referring to your comment, "The twin paradox just works okay". The fact that there is a twins paradox as a consequence of Special Relativity is what you are referring to, and it is just a fact that the paradox exists if you take SR alone. To resolve a paradox, and I think that all paradoxes have solutions, requires understanding the physics, like General Relativity, and the mechanics of nature involved. General Relativity has almost precisely described relativity mathematically; the math is the best that exists to predict the motion of objects.

Paddoboy uses a statement that sums it up when he reminds us that matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move. That is very descriptive of GR. There is still a desire to understand the mechanics, and much of the discussion about GR revolves around the fact that it is quite right mathematically, but when the "how" questions come up, they are not answered from the perspective of the mechanics involved.

So where SR/GR get us is the ability to almost precisely predict relative motion in the physical world, and where it doesn't get us is how matter tells spacetime how to curve and how curved spacetime tells matter how to move. The solution will likely be found when a quantum explanation of gravity is finally developed.

 

Actually I'm coming from the drawing board.

Don't continue spending your time in a wrong paradigm. Both are wrong. Try a totally new theory.

 

Yes. Guy by the name of John Doan was or is the quintessential twin paradox (that time dilation actually works the way Einstein predicted) idiot on Usenet and the Internet for going on 50 years now. He in't even a crank; he's like a flat Earther or something. Did you know, Thomas Dolby was like the first member of the Flat Earth Society's? GREAT music talent, no doubt. Don't really know why either of them can't abide the idea of relativity. Don't care.

The acceleration of one twin with respect to the other has nothing to do with the different rates of aging of the twins. The asymmetry of one of the twins inhabiting a moving reference frame for an extended time interval with respect to the time the other twin spends in the "rest frame" they previously coexisted in is what accounts for the differences in their respective ages. Acceleration is simply how this asymmetrical state of motion is accomplished.

The trajectory of the twins with respect to each other doesn't matter. It works for a circular trajectory of any practical size as well as it does for a linear one. The closer to the speed of light one twin goes with respect to the frame of the stationary twin, the more time dilates and the more noticeable their age differences when the twins are reunited.

Time isn't just a complex number assigned to a 4D component of a spatial coordinate because it has an arrow with a direction we cannot move freely in. Time is literally 100% the real coordinate we refer to as 'space' for all three of those (or any of an infinite number of other) directions. ALL directions are proportional to time, but even that is only part of the puzzle. Unlike a single direction we designate as space conceived of as a snapshot of a single photon traversing from one end of the 3D Euclidean universe to the other, bulk matter literally owes its temporal permanence to energy components propagating as they rotate and are entangled with each other and with the quantum field in which they exist at a quantum level much faster than that. Only the centers of particles of matter experience time at a rate that is at rest with respect to a beam of light propagating at c or with particles belonging to another twin still at rest. The rest frame is defined by +/- c, and by the zero QUANTUM SPIN AND ENTANGLEMENTS of the Higgs field, and without an understanding these are essential coupled descriptions of physical motion unrelated to a snapshot of a Euclidean universe conceived by a bias of a solid geometry that is anything but solid.

You are EVERY ONE OF YOU like John Doan. Just as much an idiot as he was/is. You should all join the Flat (or else the non-spinning) Earth Society. Physics doesn't work very well when you neglect rotation and relativity as it applies to energy and time just so you can do Ancient Greek geometry in a coordinate system with the wrong origin. Time is more relativistic than it ever was Euclidean, and space does not exist any more than a flat Earth does, other than where you are standing right now, grasshopper.

Ponder THAT for a while, martillo.

 

I understand where you are coming from. In my last post I looked forward to a quantum solution to gravity. That would qualify as a new theory when it is developed, and that would be a new paradigm, but it would be built on an understanding and an appreciation for where the scientific community has brought us. Science opens to doors to future discovery, and to characterize it as wrong without appreciation for what is right about it might turn out to be an impediment for moving into a future of discovery. Science isn't wrong as much as it is an evolution toward what is right.

 

I have pondered it for a while and found it a salad of nonsense...

 

Good for you. Mind you, it wasn't very bright of me saying Minkowski's spacetime was ill-conceived here either. It was as correct a mathematical formulation of relativity as was possible at the time. But it's time to extend it. Think about it a while. It does take a few about-faces to get it right.

 

The discovery of the spin zero Higgs boson, force carrier boson for inertia relative to space "time" interacting with atomic structure was something no 19th century mathematician could possibly have conceived in their wildest mathematical nightmare. But we all know better, don't we? Well, don't we???

Spin zero only happens, like the rest frame as opposed to the speed of light, whenever two counterbalancing spin directions for energy are equal and opposite in direction and magnitude. Get it?

Missing pieces need to fit into a larger puzzle in order to finish them. That's just how puzzles work. Time that is proportional to the linear speed of light is just the first part. The second part of the puzzle of time would require a divide by zero to compare it to that, but who cares? Like the twin paradox, it's something that just "works" the way it does. You can't derive it from first mathematical principles, so don't even try.

 

So, again, what are you doing here?

In actual fact, if any new Physics is to come, it won't come from the myriad of pretenders and posers that frequent and infest science forums such as this.

 

Thinking you are right you know, that "New Physics" won't come from forums like this, no way to develop anything here, and thinking the majority here is people like you, no way, what a waste of time here... Don't worry I won't stay for long.

 

I'm not really too concerned how long you stay.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But just don't expect reasonable people to take any extraordinary claims you make, with anything other then a grain of salt.

 

Could I just say that I started here over eight years ago with some basic ideas/concepts that were against the mainstream, as are yours. I used to get hundreds of comments, corrections, arguments, criticisms, and even personal attacks, etc., and I stuck it out; you could too. I addressed every objection, learned from those that proved correct, and evolved my model from the bottom up. I continually update it with new known science and meaningful contemplations, and I offer each step along the way for discussion.

Your approach here seems to try to shortcut the phase of presentation and selling of the ideas, and goes right to a document that you say is great. Members here are not going to spend the time to wade through the material in your link; it is overwhelming and too much to absorb, even assuming you have everything nailed. From my experience, the approach of presenting the ideas in small pieces and defending them, or learning from the comments, is better than one big "release".

Good luck with whatever approach you take, whether it is closing up shop here, or trying to heed a little advice that many members are willing to offer.

 

That (the number of posts before martillo got disgusted and left) must be some kind of record here. I wonder what that means? I hope it wasn't my fault. Really didn't mean to do that.