Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- From: jan.verheul@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 Nov 2006 01:22:14 -0800
Brian Kennelly schreef:
The acceleration does not lead to burst of clock pulses. It
leads to change in the Doppler factor. The rate at which the
pulses are received increases smoothly during the acceleration,
and then remains steady when the acceleration ends.
That means that there will be a conflict between the clocks upon
arrival home of the traveling clock. The traveling clock is ahead of
the stationary clock (based on received timing pulses) and the
stationary clock is ahead of the traveling clock (based on application
of S.R., which would at least be valid for the stationary clock,
according to proponents of S.R.).
The rest of the argument is based on this error, and your
conclusion does not follow.
You belong to the few who address the details of my experiment, Brian.
However, your argument is wrong. S.R. needs a burst of clock pulses
during acceleration to ensure consistency of clocks upon home arrival
of the traveling clock.
Regards, Jan.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- From: Brian Kennelly
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- References:
- Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- From: jan . verheul
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- From: Brian Kennelly
- Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- Prev by Date: Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- Next by Date: Re: Relativistic Action
- Previous by thread: Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- Next by thread: Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (second proof)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|