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

Wright brothers were bicycle fixers and were them who invented the plane!
Not well instructed physicians, not well paid engineers...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Touché (though I'd categorize their accomplishment as one of technology, not science).

However, that still doesn't make you any more right.

(Oh, and a physician has medical training. A physicist studies physics.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's an invention, martillo... not new science. The Wright brothers' work was firmly grounded on a century of established aeronautical science. Self-educated inventors are not rare.

What is rare (but not non-existent, I think) is instances in science of "an underdog with no formal training beating the odds and showing the experts wrong."

Also, I think that any cases that do exist are cases of people making contributions to fairly specialized areas, rather than overturning some foundation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Best post ever.

 

Funkstar,

Back to discuss seriously the problem.

I have already explored the possibility of "switching frames" since long time ago and I know it can remove the first inconsistency of the problem (but not the other two!).
I haven't used it in what I called the first inconsistency because I never heard anyplace, while presenting Lorentz Transform, something like: "the referentials to be considered should accompany the direction of the velocity of the object being observed". This is what you do. I thought it was a bad assumption I made myself at once but I realize now that for Relativity to survive all this time it must be considered...

What about the other two contradictions that still remain:

NOTE:
If we want to use clocks to compute times elapsed we can synchronize them simultaneously chousing the instant of take off of the space-ships out of the mother-ship.

 

ok, I am sorry, I can't take it anymore. a physician is someone who practices medicine, a physicist is someone who practices physics.

 

On the contrary, they succeeded because they taught themselves to be excellent physicists in the feild of aerodynamics and were already successfull engineers designing bicycles and internal combustion engines. When they discovered the standard aerodynamic tables of the time were "not so good" they built their own wind tunnel and used it to create their own vastly superior tables. With this better data, standard aerodynamic theory, and the best engines (power to weigh ratio, built by them) they succeeded. Textbook example of how mainstream science and engineering work.

 

Doesn't it all come down to the disciplines of what being a physicist means.
The process, the utility...etc...

If the disciplines are followed then this thread would not have started.

For example what process is needed to be undertaken before an article is published. What processes are to be followed before making any claims what so ever.....

 

So because U dont know the answer, I insulted U ?

 

Kevinlam,

It would have started anyway, may be many years later, may be without other people, not us, but all this subject would have came.

 

Kevinalm,

"...they taught themselves...they built their own wind tunnel...their own vastly superior tables...engines...built by them..."

 

I want to point now that I did had "formal training". I made Electrical Engineering where I learned about the formalities and rigorousities that must be applied particularly in Mathematics, Physics, Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism.
My theories are all about Electricity and Magnetism!

I agree that what I learned about Relativity was by self-study and I was lucky in that! You know, memory is limited and I avoided to fill it with the majority of Relativity consequences and issues. I concentrated on the basics just the necessary to really demonstrate myself if it is a right or a wrong theory and I could demonstrate that it is wrong! This demonstration is not the problem we are discussing about and can be found in Section 1.2 of my manuscript. This is way I am stubborn.

The problem we are considering now raised fortunately inspired trying to explain my point of view in this thread and I consider it new evidence now.

 

martillo,

The frames of reference you should consider, if you want to say anything sensical about the proper time of the objects, should be the frames of reference in which the objects you consider are at rest.

You have three frames in your thought experiment. You only use transformation between two of them. The B clock going to the left is not at rest in the reference frame of A, yet you use the the time coordinate from the A frame as proper time for B.

That's just wrong. I explained this ever so carefully several times in this thread already.

They are not contradictions. There's no absolute time for things to be "really" simultaneous in, so the intrinsic concept of time in those statements are frame dependent. You have several different frames, hence you get several different views of how time elapses.

 

Martillo, why don't you post some of your other ground breaking theories here. I am sure that we could help validate them.

And don't post your geocities link. Post a single new theory (with the math associated with it). Perhaps you could show us how it works with current observations as well.

Don't forget it up to you to prove current theories wrong...

 

And you aren't phased by all of us (not just here, but at PhysicsForums, PhysOrgForums, TheScienceForum, SFN and so on) saying you are wrong, and pointing out your numerous basic errors?

 

Funkstar,

But this is like to say don't apply Lorentz Transform!
Relativity have born exactly to compare space coordinates and time in one frame as seen by another frame!

In Relativity time is frame dependent, I agree. I'm considering three frames and comparing how a phenomenon is observed by three different relativistic frames and comparing the observations. The intrinsic properties of the phenomenon like the age of the twins must be the same in whatever referential we choose. No phenomenon will change if we change the frame of observation. The point is to determine what is really happening with the twins, the reality is only one, is absolute. What have happend and what is happening in anyplace is just one reality and cannot be changed by a change of referential.

The problem is that "how time elapses" is an intrinsic property like the age of an individual and so the views must be the same!

May be this concept is something new I'm introducing with the problem I'm presenting... something not considered before... It could be good isn't it?

As I mentioned in the problem to have a good intuition about reality and the intrinsic property of elapsed time photographies can be taken by the twins and be sent for the other twin and the mother-ship and even to us for study. The time elapsed to receive the photographies doesn't matter, we can analyze what happened later.

 

This theory is NOT new, it was around for thousands of years and then thrown away as relativity was developed.

 

Underwhelmed,

Ok, like the Emission Theory of Light...
Well, they will come back, be prepaired...

 

Absolutely not! What exactly do you think the Lorentz transforms do, if not switch between frames of reference?!? Do you even understand the technical concept of a "transformation"? Are you under the delusion that somehow transformation equations don't depend on which coordinate systems you're translating between?

Look at the transforms again.

"The Lorentz transformation is a group transformation that is used to transform the space and time coordinates (or in general any four-vector) of one inertial reference frame, S, into those of another one, S', with S' traveling at a relative speed of v to S along the x-axis." I.e. to the right.

Do you see the part in red? In your example, S is the mothership frame, and S' is the rest frame of twin A. But you proceed to use S' as the rest frame of twin B, and that's simply not true, something you could convince yourself of, if you had bothered to transform B's x-coordinate into S' as well.

A small test before I consider anything you reply with:

What are the Lorentz transformation equations for changing from the frame of twin A to the frame of the mothership?

No, you didn't. You only use two frames. That's just wrong.

It's isn't good or new. You're simply mistaken about the strength of common sense.

What makes you believe that nature cares about your intuition?