I have the following argument which responds to your points I believe.
Optional:* Argument why rotating frames must experience time distortion
under SR:*
*Firstly we can observe that if the linear velocity of the rim of a
rotating disk would have the observer on that disk see a light clock in a
If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it is
almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same minus
the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time
dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and
Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing
about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock
as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING
constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the
other
Ok, here is the way to really hit this one home, but it it a little more
complex.
So hopefully you can follow that in a large way there is a similarity
between the Wikipedia argument and mine.
Let's setup a hybrid for fun, we will place mirrors either side of the of
the sensors in my experiment
John,
Unfortunately, upon further reflection these two thought experiments aren't
paradoxical, because they involve sending a signal over a non-zero
distance. Whenever such signaling is present a putative paradox vanishes
when analysed according to the principles of relativity theory . Therefore,
BTW I should note that while General Relativity predicts time dilation from
acceleration, this is apparently not so.
Of course this merely means the main cause of disagreement will not be the
different rate the clocks keep time, but the path the see the light to take
to be straight.
This might
That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like
solid paradox to me. So does the thought experiment designed to test SR.
You should illustrate that as well.
harry
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Here you go:
I very much appreciate your saying so Harry!
You give me faith in humans!
Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
That is clearer. The thought experiment designed to test GR looks like
solid paradox to me.
The linear example you describe below.
Harry
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
I very much appreciate your saying so Harry!
You give me faith in humans!
Which SR experiment are you saying I should illustrate?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H
On second thought, I am not so sure about the linear example.
I will need to see it illustrated to be sure.
harry
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The linear example you describe below.
Harry
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM, John Berry
The spatial relationships between the discs and clocks is not clear.
Can you draw a diagram of the experiment?
harry
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in a
few more, But the longer
Here you go: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/4812/j2s2.png
BTW if acceleration doesn't cause time dilation, even though it is a claim
of General Relativity that acceleration does this.
Then the the second clock would not be time dilated by that means.
But the argument would still stand since the
For brevity, I will explain it in sentence. and the possible results in a
few more, But the longer form solves questions and objections:
Take 2 light sensors separated at an appropriate distance, the censors are
shaped like CD and are transparent, designated A and B, rotate them at high
enough
13 matches
Mail list logo
