Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Quantum Phase Compactification via Spacetime Expansion"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: A binary star paradox"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray"
- Next in thread: John Kennaugh: "Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray"
- Reply: John Kennaugh: "Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:34:05 +0200
OK then - still one more remark. ;-)
You wrote that in the inertial frame, g=0 AND a little further, that a=g
whereby a = NOT 0....
In the inertial frame, all definitions are relative to that frame: g is NOT
relative to the earth but to the fictive inertial frame.
Thus NOT g=0 but g= GM/R^2 and in free fall, a= v^2/R and a=g.
Your weight is taken in the rotating frame of the earth. Just measure it in
an inertial frame - that's possible using a low-flying airplane...
Harald
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Quantum Phase Compactification via Spacetime Expansion"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: A binary star paradox"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray"
- Next in thread: John Kennaugh: "Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray"
- Reply: John Kennaugh: "Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]