martillo

But this would mean that at that instant C aged more than B by 5. So C first aging more than B and not less. This would not be the case if they are always travelling at some constant velocity relative to each other. When the concept of the travelling twin aging less apply then?

But you said: " after B receives his signal, B ages by 10 while he observes C aging only by 5." This means that at some instant B having 10 observed C aged only 5 so how is that some time after they reach the same age? What happened for C first aging less and after recovering the same age than B? Everything as seen from B of course... As I mentioned, at the crossing point both twins can interchange photos to see how actually aged the other one. Only one can age less than the other one and for instance present a smaller beard.

But you say that at the end, when the twins encounter at the crossing point, both twins aged the same. Do you mean than after receiving the signal the other twin ages inversely, aging more and not less?

But you mean each twin would never observe the other one aging less... I wonder if the same reasoning would apply in the classic twins' paradox with just one twin travelling...

But I can consider the travels without accelerations involved. Consider B and C far away travelling in opposite directions with constant velocities to cross at some point. Consider they start observing the things at some instant synchronized with a signal from the middle crossing point. Each one will observe the other one age less and that would be inconsistent observations. If the same answer is "the other age less" there's a problem. Both cannot age less than the other one...

How is that twin C aged 10 just in the "momentary" or "instantaneous" turn at some point? I don't get this.

You didn't get the point. They would be the same age if observed from the frame in twin A who observes both the same way. From the frames on each of the twins B and C the situation is different. The both observe the other one aging less. It is not a matter of determine the three observations on the three frames and pick up a "right" one. The problem is precisely that there are different observations each one contradicting the other ones and this is an inconsistency.

A complete symmetrical travel would be for instance starting being together, travelling the same way in opposite directions for the same time and returning back crossing at the same point at the same instant without stopping, just crossing and comparing the results of the observations at this point. Each twin (frame of reference) observes the other twin aging less. This is contradictory. Consider for instance a long enough travel for the twins having their beard growing. Each one would see the other one with less beard. To visualize that they could take photographs of themselves along the travel and interchange them at the crossing point so is something that could be verified in practice if needed. Each one would observe the other one with a shorter beard. The two different observations are inconsistent.

Considering the case of the twins A, B and C but forgetting twin A for a while. Just twins B and C. It is the case of two twins making a completely symmetrical travel and so both are affected the same way by any consideration in acceleration or time dilation. Each one will see the other one aging less and so there would be an inconsistency. The two different frames of reference observe contradictory results. How the inconsistency would be solved if possible?

You are right. The unities of the left side does not match with those of the right side. They are different things. It is just a coincidence that they present the same numerical value within the mks system of unities. Thanks.

Do you mean that the unit for charge can be changed? It could be a not fundamental unit but if you change the unit of charge the known Electric Force equation F = Kq1q2/r2 would change needing a constant different from K. Would this bring some problem or actually not? I'm just asking, I don't know the total consequence of a change in the unit of charge in Physics.

I'm still thinking about the subject. I think I have found a possible interesting relation. Seems the relation holds in other systems of units but I'm not sure yet. Working on that... You are right, an electron has a negative charge. I think the relation takes into account just the positive values. It could be the charge of the positron then. I'm not sure, is not clear for me. That's why I'm asking here in the forum for a possible explanation of the relation. Looking in the table of the constants in the cgs system of units the relation h = kqc does not hold numerically but it could be because of a lack of some constant for conversion needed. The relation has a numerical exact match within the mks system of units. It should mean something...

q = 1.6x10-19 C (Coulombs) is the charge of the electron and yes, 1,6x10-19 J (Joules) is the energy of one electron-volt. I'm sorry, I have an Spanish table of the constants. I apologize if this brings troubles. I'll write the point in the future.

I think it should but the matching relates Joules, Coulombs, Kelvin graus, meter and seconds. I don't know how to check that. I think not.

Right, I edited that now. Thanks.

There's a match in the physics' constants: h = k.q.c Does anybody knows the reason? h = 6,62 x10^-34 J/s k = 1,38x10^-23 J/K q = 1,60x10^-19 C c = 3,00x10^8 m/s These are the values with precision of two digits but the matching seems valid for any quantity of digits. Nothing appears in a google search...

My thinking is that if neutrinos where the "dark matter" they would be more concentrated near the centre of the galaxies but this is not the required mass distribution for "dark matter". I looked for the required distribution of "dark matter" within galaxies and I found an article from Britannica explaining this: (https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-matter). It says: "In general, the speed with which stars orbit the centre of their galaxy is independent of their separation from the centre; indeed, orbital velocity is either constant or increases slightly with distance rather than dropping off as expected. To account for this, the mass of the galaxy within the orbit of the stars must increase linearly with the distance of the stars from the galaxy’s centre. However, no light is seen from this inner mass—hence the name “dark matter.”" So, a linearly increase of mass with with the distance from the centre is required. I find this very strange, too strange. "Dark matter" is something too strange for my mind...

I was editing while you answering. I will copy my last comment now: It is a relation between the Standard Model and Relativity. It is not a problem between themselves. They are compatible in this. Thank you Eise very much for your advice. If I have something to ask I will count with the forum, thanks.

Please, seems we both are confusing what the other actually say. In that phrase I was talking about the Standard Model not mine. I don't use the same name for mine. I didn't give a name to my model. This way, doesn't Relativity also limit the velocity of propagation of fields and forces like in the "force carriers" too? This is the relation between Relativity and the Standard Model I was talking about.

May be it was just a misunderstanding. I wrote: I was talking about my model, not the Standard Model. Eise, I appreciate your comment. May be you didn't read the following I have posted while answering to studiot: My model have a different configuration of the electrons in the atom, they remain quite static in an equilibrium between electric and magnetic forces with with its associated proton, but it is totally compatible with the "quantum levels" of current theory giving the same spectral series for hydrogen for instance as I show. The model would be also totally compatible with all the geometry already considered in atoms. All these imposible for me to treat here in a thread in the forum, of course, mainly due to the many mistakes I usually make as I admitted.

Too much wrong things I have posted in this thread. I always make mistakes, may be everyday. Even having reason in some things I make too much mistakes while trying to defend them. I apologize. I will not bother you more...

You asked for a reference for "... Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. " right? Actually that is something I have seen in lot forums' discussions, is not based in any scientific document. My perception was that Relativity impose the c limit in the velocity of everything, that nothing can travel at a higher velocity than c. Am I wrong in this? Is there something currently allowed to travel instantaneously through space? Particularly is there any field in current theories that propagates instantaneously? Am I wrong concluding that is Relativity that impose the c limit in the propagation of any field? You know, is really difficult for me to get to the real point in what you are saying. It happened many times to me. I need to read several times your assertions to understand properly what you are trying to transmit. May be it is because English is not my natural language and I get lost while reading. Is not my intention to misunderstand what you say... So you judge something without reading it just because you judge the author doesn't have enough understanding on the subject. So you judge something without knowing anything of what it is about. It is your decision, you close even the possibility to talk about, nothing I could do. To make things worst for me I have made many big mistakes here in this thread. I understand your point of view. How could I revert it? Is there a way?

The Standard Model includes "force carriers" travelling at c velocity of light. Isn't this a condition imposed to match with Relativity? Do you refer to the electron's change in longitudinal size due to the effect of retarded potentials as determined by the original Lorentz's factor introduced by Lorentz which was associated to an increase of mass in the experiments of Kaufmann, Bucherer and Neumann experiments?

The key feature is that the model is based in instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields as Classical Physics do and that goes against Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. That also goes against the electromagnetic wave theory of light, I know, the model agrees with the particle theory of light (the photons) only and solving the "wave-particle duality" in favor to the particle model only. As everything is inter related in Physics, just a little change somewhere provoke changes in several other places. But there's no other way for a new theory. The paradigm of "welding" all theories doesn't work...

I totally agree with for an angular momentum and the Bohr magneton applied to a small charge but not at all to a point charge. The problem that arises then is how is that small particle meaning to give a structure for the particle. That's what the model I'm working is about. I'm not trying to model ions with some "(-ve)charge rotating about another equal or greater charge". I have no problems with ions now. Once I have admitted being totally wrong with the title of the thread and completely admitting the existence of negative ions I have not any problem with Chemistry now. I can completely agree with everything on Chemistry now. The problem I face now is with the Standard Model of particles. The model is in an advanced stage, advanced enough to be able to deal the main problems it could face to become a new model of all the particles and all the experimental particles observed in high energy Physics, I think. But it also has other big problems with half of the current "Quantum Physics" in what relates to the called "Waves Mechanics Theory" based on the De Broglie hypothesis of "matter waves" associated to the particles. Not to mention the problems it has with Relativity Theory. I'm totally aware about the huge challenge it involves and the enormous task it presents presenting it to discussion. So enormous that it doesn't fit to be presented just as an article in a Physics' journal for peer review and I know now the so enormous difficulty it would face to present the complete model for discussion here in the forum. I'm developing a manuscript with about 120 pages now to send to some universities just with the big hope that someone could take a look and be able to analyze it as properly as I think it deserves. That is the only way I think it could take. I can't think other way. What I have tried in the forum other times is to take some parts of it to put into discussion but is very difficult since everything is inter related in Physics, I'm well aware about that. But it worked sometimes and it was very productive for me to make corrections in the manuscript. May be I come with some other subjects to treat in some other threads in the forum other times. That's in resume the big challenge I'm facing today... P.S. The manuscript presents just a start point for a new theory in Physics, it does not pretend to replace the entire Physics' Science, not at all. It explicitly mention that. It also explicitly mention that I'm not infallible anyway and that adjustments could be necessary.