Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: "SDaryl" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Aug 2005 04:52:30 -0700
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> SDaryl wrote:
> > "introductory GR" *is* GR. The theory that you are
> > probably thinking of is a *generalization* of GR,
> > Einstein's attempts at a unified field theory.
>
> Yes, that's correct.
Then that's not GR. We're discussing GR. In General Relativity, there
is a distinction between geodesics (the paths taken by test particles
under no forces except gravity, if you want to consider that a force)
and non-geodesics (the paths taken by test particles under the
influence of non-gravitational forces such as electromagnetism).
> > Ken, that doesn't make any sense. The whole
> > point of a physical theory is to make testable
> > predictions. If *every* motion is a geodesic,
> > then the claim that objects move along geodesics
> > has no predictive value.
>
> What?? All motion is predictably geodesical.
No. If I am hovering in midair above the Earth, then my motion is *not*
a geodesic. Non-geodesic motion is an indication of non-gravitational
force: I'm using a jet-pack, or an electromagnet, or something.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- References:
- Twin paradox invalidated
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: SDaryl
- Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Twin paradox invalidated
- Prev by Date: Re: Annotated Einstein Clock
- Next by Date: Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- Previous by thread: Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- Next by thread: Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
