Triplet Paradox (an updated version of the twin paradox experiment)

TonyYuan

TonyYuan

Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves
Registered Senior Member
Everyone should be aware of the twin paradox experiment, which tells us that B returning from space travel will be younger than A on Earth. The reason given by SR is that there is an acceleration process when B leaves the earth, and a deceleration process when B returns to the earth, so this is the root cause of B's younger age.

So we redesigned the experiment:
A, B, C are triplet brothers, C stays on the earth, A and B drive the spacecraft away from the earth at the same time. When they arrive at the P1 position at the same time, A starts to decelerate and return to the earth, B maintains a constant speed v and continues to fly for 1 light year to the P2 position, and then B returns, and B continues to maintain the speed of v to return to the position where A and B separated (P1), and then B starts to decelerate and return to the earth.

In this process, A and B have exactly the same acceleration and deceleration process, the only difference is that B maintains a constant speed v and flies a distance of 2 light years (P1-->P2, P2--->P1).

So who will be younger, A or B?

James R was thrown into disarray.
Finally Janus58 gave an answer, he said that B will be younger. The reason given by Janus58 is: (P1-->P2, P2--->P1) , during this period, the earth is taken as the reference system, B has a speed v, and A is stationary, so B will be younger.
But Janus58, have you ever thought about it: if B is the reference frame, A has a speed of v, and B is stationary, A will be younger.

So when A and B meet again on the earth, who will be younger?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/CankWckRaMtsZ48b7
 
Last edited:
How about we try quintuplets, then possibly relativity will no longer be true! Keep trying Tony, maybe some day everyone will say, "Golly, Tony is right, he must be smarter than Einstein". Aren't fantasies fun...
 
origin said:
How about we try quintuplets, then possibly relativity will no longer be true! Keep trying Tony, maybe some day everyone will say, "Golly, Tony is right, he must be smarter than Einstein". Aren't fantasies fun...
Click to expand...
Don't you say that, Einstein I've always thought he was the stupidest person in the world, and it's a shame to be compared to him.
You should focus on my question, the procedure of this triplet paradox experiment is not complicated.
 
TonyYuan said:
Don't you say that, Einstein I've always thought he was the stupidest person in the world, and it's a shame to be compared to him.
You should focus on my question, the procedure of this triplet paradox experiment is not complicated.
Click to expand...
But first, Tony, we have unfinished business. In your theory, does a body with mass lose energy over time, or not?
 
exchemist said:
But first, Tony, we have unfinished business. In your theory, does a body with mass lose energy over time, or not?
Click to expand...
Any object can lose energy, or gain energy. I think my theory and whether the object is huge or not cannot prevent these most basic properties of objects.
 
TonyYuan said:
Any object can lose energy, or gain energy. I think my theory and whether the object is huge or not cannot prevent these most basic properties of objects.
Click to expand...
Well no, your theory specifically states that a massive object radiates away energy. So it must continually lose energy, even when isolated and at rest relative to the observer. So where does the energy come from and what change in properties of the object can we expect to observe, Tony?
 
Tony, we can all clearly see that you are refusing to answer exchemists question because it would show that your 'theory' is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
1. A middle school student asked his teacher, electrons are bound by the electric field of the atomic nucleus, why the protons in the atomic nucleus can continuously generate an electric field, and the energy of the atomic nucleus will not be exhausted?

2. The explosion of the atomic bomb made mankind see that mass can be converted into energy, but now someone stands in front of the gravitational source and asks, where does the gravitational field energy of the gravitational source come from? What happens when the energy of the gravitational source is exhausted?

3. Human science is just getting started, but human physics has already reached the pinnacle of the universe (the great Einstein is already the emperor of the universe in new clothes and with his ass bared). I always thought this was just a Western fairy tale, but it turned out to be the reality of the West. The gravitational source accidentally released a gravitational field, which made the ministers very angry. Gravity can only come from "bending". Only under the theory of bending can the energy of the gravitational source be endless. exchemist should want to express this meaning, right?
 
TonyYuan said:
Finally Janus58 gave an answer, he said that B will be younger. The reason given by Janus58 is: (P1-->P2, P2--->P1) , during this period, the earth is taken as the reference system, B has a speed v, and A is stationary, so B will be younger.
But Janus58, have you ever thought about it: if B is the reference frame, A has a speed of v, and B is stationary, A will be younger.
Click to expand...
First off, That's not what I said. I even went to the trouble of showing how all three come to the same conclusion as to who will be younger when they reunite. I can only conclude that you did not understand my explanation, or you are lying about my explanation.
Secondly, B cannot "be a reference frame". Reference frames are not objects, nor are they attached to objects. They are what their name suggests, a reference system against which motion is measured with respect to.
And any moment, any of the three could have their motion measured with respect to any of an infinite number of reference frames. For simplicity's sake we usually work in the frame in the the object is considered at rest with respect to during the period we are dealing with.
For A and B that means that at different parts of the scenario, we have to work from at least three different reference frames*, The inertial frame they are at rest in while moving away from the Earth, the non-inertial reference frame during which they are doing their turnaround, and the inertial frame they are at rest in during the return leg. We then add up these results to get what a observer traveling with either will conclude at the end of the exercise.

There is no discrepancy between what the Earth, A, or B will conclude at the end of the exercise under Relativity, as as long as you properly apply it, and not some misconceived version of your own making. And in the end, this is what it comes down to. You are arguing against what you think relativity says, rather than what the theory actual says (as evidenced by your confusion over what a reference frame is).

*If the beginning and ending accelerations for A and/or B occur over extended periods of time, then two more non-inertial frames must be included.
 
TonyYuan said:
1. A middle school student asked his teacher, electrons are bound by the electric field of the atomic nucleus, why the protons in the atomic nucleus can continuously generate an electric field, and the energy of the atomic nucleus will not be exhausted?

2. The explosion of the atomic bomb made mankind see that mass can be converted into energy, but now someone stands in front of the gravitational source and asks, where does the gravitational field energy of the gravitational source come from? What happens when the energy of the gravitational source is exhausted?

3. Human science is just getting started, but human physics has already reached the pinnacle of the universe (the great Einstein is already the emperor of the universe in new clothes and with his ass bared). I always thought this was just a Western fairy tale, but it turned out to be the reality of the West. The gravitational source accidentally released a gravitational field, which made the ministers very angry. Gravity can only come from "bending". Only under the theory of bending can the energy of the gravitational source be endless. exchemist should want to express this meaning, right?
Click to expand...

1) The protons exert a static electric field. This does not involve any radiation of energy.

2) Mass is not converted "into energy" in atomic explosions. Rest energy is converted into kinetic energy and the energy of electromagnetic waves (radiation energy). Energy is conserved throughout.

3) Nonsensical trolling, deliberately intended to annoy: reported.
 
Tony has been warned for trolling. Due to accumulated warning points, he is temporarily banned for 1 month.
 
Seems that, as well as his daft notion that a field involves waves, there is an inferiority complex about “Western” science, relativity being the aspect he has chosen to fix his resentment upon. Which is a poor choice, as it seems to be one of the most solid and least controversial c.20th advances in physics, but there we are.

But I suppose it is a wholly “Western” development. At least in QM we have Bose among the founding fathers, so there is input from Asia.
 
exchemist said:
Seems that, as well as his daft notion that a field involves waves, there is an inferiority complex about “Western” science...
Click to expand...
Tony wouldn't have to look far to find compatriot believers in "Western Science" at his workplace, assuming he is (or was at one time) employed at a university, as his bio claims. I'm sure the Physics and Engineering departments near where he works are full of believers in Einstein's decadent "Western" ideas. I think that Tony must think that Chinese scientists are all back in the dim ages with him, accepting or rejecting scientific facts on the basis of some kind of twisted ideology rather than robust scientific criteria. If Chinese scientists in general thought like Tony, China would be a backwater in scientific research. It very much is not that.

I think Tony's inferiority complex might be due to his working on the periphery of science, rather than being a scientist himself. All his anti-relativity stuff (perhaps all of his science stuff) is something he is not paid to do; it's essentially a spare-time hobby of his, as far as I can gather. Perhaps Tony was pushed out of science/engineering (or not admitted into it) and is envious of people who are still in it.

Tony claims to have a PhD, but I'm highly skeptical of that. It looks like he might, in fact, be a librarian or similar. (Note: I am not at all trying to disparage librarians in general, some of whom certainly have PhDs.) I get the impression that Tony likes to fantasise about his own qualifications and importance.

It is telling that Tony claimed to have published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, but when he was asked to provide a citation to confirm that he was unable to do so, and in fact ignored the direct request twice. I think it is reasonable to conclude that he just flat-out lied about having a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
 
James R said:
Tony wouldn't have to look far to find compatriot believers in "Western Science" at his workplace, assuming he is (or was at one time) employed at a university, as his bio claims. I'm sure the Physics and Engineering departments near where he works are full of believers in Einstein's decadent "Western" ideas. I think that Tony must think that Chinese scientists are all back in the dim ages with him, accepting or rejecting scientific facts on the basis of some kind of twisted ideology rather than robust scientific criteria. If Chinese scientists in general thought like Tony, China would be a backwater in scientific research. It very much is not that.

I think Tony's inferiority complex might be due to his working on the periphery of science, rather than being a scientist himself. All his anti-relativity stuff (perhaps all of his science stuff) is something he is not paid to do; it's essentially a spare-time hobby of his, as far as I can gather. Perhaps Tony was pushed out of science/engineering (or not admitted into it) and is envious of people who are still in it.

Tony claims to have a PhD, but I'm highly skeptical of that. It looks like he might, in fact, be a librarian or similar. (Note: I am not at all trying to disparage librarians in general, some of whom certainly have PhDs.) I get the impression that Tony likes to fantasise about his own qualifications and importance.

It is telling that Tony claimed to have published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, but when he was asked to provide a citation to confirm that he was unable to do so, and in fact ignored the direct request twice. I think it is reasonable to conclude that he just flat-out lied about having a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
Click to expand...
Read a few of these posts regarding SR/GR and Tony Yuan.

If a researcher has a solid belief they can upend 118 years of verified science, I would expect more than thought experiments?


A few points (I am not a scientist I am technologist/applications guy)


Relativity had groundwork Lorentz and Poincare, it is not just about disproving Einstein.

SR was combined with QM by Paul Dirac which led to the discovery of the positron, if SR is wrong, an explanation is required to made sense of its predictive power finding a new particle.

Explain technologies successfully using relativity adjustments for accurate measurements in particle accelerators, GPS, fission, atmospheric particle decay.

Time dilation successfully measured using atomic clocks ( Hafele–Keating experiment and others)

Cosmology uses and has been using GR for modelling black holes, universe, Gravitational lensing, binary systems (one of you guys mentioned this) and Gravity waves.
 
As an aside I have come across a lot of anti-Einstein on line.

I watch a lot of music and pop science presentation on YT, stuff on Webb Black hole Hubble etc and there are some good guys doing it, like Fermi lab, Anton Dr Becky.

Give it a week and some nut job will pounce saying Einstein is wrong.

A few commonalities.
  • Anti Einstein
  • They tend to mention Teller having better insight
  • Tired light mentioned
  • Black holes dismissed
  • Lie about qualifications, I studied life sciences not physics but I can spot mistakes if simple enough.
  • A possible religious connection
 
Pinball1970 said:
As an aside I have come across a lot of anti-Einstein on line.

I watch a lot of music and pop science presentation on YT, stuff on Webb Black hole Hubble etc and there are some good guys doing it, like Fermi lab, Anton Dr Becky.

Give it a week and some nut job will pounce saying Einstein is wrong.

A few commonalities.
  • Anti Einstein
  • They tend to mention Teller having better insight
  • Tired light mentioned
  • Black holes dismissed
  • Lie about qualifications, I studied life sciences not physics but I can spot mistakes if simple enough.
  • A possible religious connection
Click to expand...
Yes this tallies with my own experience too. Though I had not come across Teller in this context. (I know him from the Jahn-Teller theorem in chemistry.)
 
From Wiki


"In 1935 he (Tesla) described relativity as "a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king" and said his own experiments had measured the speed of cosmic rays from Arcturus as fifty times the speed of light.[269]

Tesla claimed to have developed his own physical principle regarding matter and energy that he started working on in 1892,[267] and in 1937, at age 81, claimed in a letter to have completed a "dynamic theory of gravity" that "[would] put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space". He stated that the theory was "worked out in all details" and that he hoped to soon give it to the world.[270] Further elucidation of his theory was never found in his writings.[271]
 
Pinball1970 said:
From Wiki


"In 1935 he (Tesla) described relativity as "a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king" and said his own experiments had measured the speed of cosmic rays from Arcturus as fifty times the speed of light.[269]

Tesla claimed to have developed his own physical principle regarding matter and energy that he started working on in 1892,[267] and in 1937, at age 81, claimed in a letter to have completed a "dynamic theory of gravity" that "[would] put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space". He stated that the theory was "worked out in all details" and that he hoped to soon give it to the world.[270] Further elucidation of his theory was never found in his writings.[271]
Click to expand...
Yeah he went nuts eventually. But engineer cranks like him, because they think they understand electromagnetism - electric universe and all that balls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top