Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:22:09 -0600

César Sirvent wrote:

> Regarding this message of yours, written a few weeks ago,
>
> http://groups.google.es/groups?q=g:thl1924827701d&dq=&hl=es&lr=&selm=jdqKd.6805%24de7.3172%40news.cpqcorp.net
>
> where you mention my name
>
> "There was no reason for you to say "SRT (at
> that time) didn't account for accelerating frames."
> You are doing a Cesar Sirvent here."
>
> I recommend you to rectify, as you are implicitly assuming that I must be a
> kind of Herbert Dingle.
> IMHO, the problem is not that you don't understand the solution of the
> so-called twin paradox.
> The problem is that you don't even understand the correct formulation of the
> question.

:)

I've engaged Dirk in the same argument. He doesn't seem to grasp that
he's deriving a GR relationship from SR and the premise of
nonreciprocity (broken symmetry) in an accelerating field. I could be
wrong, but then so necessarily was Einstein, since this was the very
argument that he used to support the necessity of GR, an argument that
I quoted for Dirk, to no avail. I suppose one could state that SR
requires GR, and thus *everything* is resolvable with SR alone, in
effect. But then the extension of SR to accelerating frames *is* GR,
so why not call it properly GR in which the solution to the twin
paradox lies.

Richard Perry