Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel
From: César Sirvent (8umucsxyRemoveSPam_at_terra.es)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: 2ndPostulateDude: "Re: Is Relativity Infallible??!"
- Previous message: whopkins_at_csd.uwm.edu: "Re: What is mass?"
- In reply to: GR_GR: "Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel"
- Next in thread: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:32:16 GMT
> > As I said, most of modern relativists consider that the twin paradox is
> > solvable in SR.
>
> Do you agree?
No.
> > They are refering, of course, to the mathematical aspect, which was
never an
> > issue until Dingle entered into scene.
> > Always the problem lied into the physical aspect of the problem, which
is
> > what is now being ignored.
>
> I guess that is a "no".
Yes. :-)
> > It would be interesting you would consider what my point of view is
instead
> > of attacking it without additional info, as it is demanded by the
scientific
> > method.
>
> Post your idea then.
> However, from the responses of others on this group, it seems that your
> ideas are flawed.
No, it is likely they are not. Most critics don't seem to understand the
problem.
C. Moller, an authoritative expert in GR, had ideas which were quite similar
to mine.
Apparently, the four dimensional formalism of SR precludes from seeing the
physical interpretation.
> I will reserve judgment on the validity of that impression until I have
> seen your idea, in its full mathematical formalism.
Oh, there is little mathematics to discuss. It refers to the interpretation
of the discontinuity or time gap as due to gravitation instead of a
differential change of frames and its associated change in synchronization.
You can googlesearch for it in sci.physics.relativity, a discussion with
Dirk, in which he uses a lot of equations to get the elapsed time of the
non-acelerated traveller respect to a set of comoving inertial systems
accompanying the accelerated observer, and I use the idea of this
differential change of frames to avoid a lot of calculations. I can look for
it if you don't find it in a quick search.
Basically, I affirm that the interpretation of these differential gaps as
due to a gravitational field is which solves the paradox from the point of
view of the accelerated observer, as the modern "solution" lies only in the
misunderstood identification of the set of instantly comoving inertial
frames with the accelerated frame (which is uniquely defined, contrary to
some ambiguous interpretations).
- Next message: 2ndPostulateDude: "Re: Is Relativity Infallible??!"
- Previous message: whopkins_at_csd.uwm.edu: "Re: What is mass?"
- In reply to: GR_GR: "Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel"
- Next in thread: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
