Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- From: "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Sep 2006 14:22:55 -0700
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ADoKg.14482$1f6.3216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Koobee Wublee wrote:
The GR effect was quite negligible in that experiment,
That is simply not true -- READ THEIR PAPER. <shrug>
The following two links address SR issue in this experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
http://www.gatago.com/sci/physics/relativity/9268600.html
The result is unmistakable.
Each party records a different observed time dilation on the other one.
This is a violation of the principle of Relativity (PoR) where each
frame of reference does not obey the same law of physics.
In the ACTUAL H&K measurement, NONE of the clocks is at rest in an
inertial frame. The PoR of SR applies only to inertial frames -- READ
Einstein's 1905 paper or any modern textbook on SR. <shrug>
Einstein's 1905 is full of mistakes.
SR is an
interpretation to Lorentz Transform which is based on the postulate of
PoR. This means SR is proven wrong by H&K. I still don't understand
how you can argue against the experimental result.
Of course SR is "proven" wrong by H&K (your word -- I would say
"invalidated") -- essentially any experiment in which gravitation is
important invalidates SR. That's why Einstein embarked on the road to
GR. <shrug>
It would be more productive if you can show me the math of how GR
resolves the twin's paradox.
H&K's measurements are consistent with the predictions of GR. <shrug>
You need to read about H&K more closely. The whole academics is
dwelling on the SR issue.
You have always taken experimental result as the way to model physics.
Experimental results validate models, but do not provide them. Only
models (theories) that are not invalidated experimentally are viable,
and it is HIGHLY desirable that they be validated by as many different
experiments as possible. This is known as science. <shrug>
This is an idea case. In real life, GR is assumed to resolve SR.
Thus, any experimental results that indicate a violation of SR is
brushed aside. You need to follow your own advice for a change.
<shrug>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- References:
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page (was: What become...)
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Comments on my FAQ page (was: What become...)
- Prev by Date: Re: Many Solutions to Einstein Field Equations in Vacuum
- Next by Date: Re: The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong
- Previous by thread: Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- Next by thread: Re: Comments on my FAQ page
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
