Re: Relativity Principle Revisited

On Aug 25, 9:32 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Indeed, it is an excellent advice.

You should take it.

I do, but why don't you?

The so-called twin paradox occurs when two clocks are synchronized,
separated, and rejoined. If one clock remains in an inertial frame, then
the other must be accelerated sometime during its journey, and it
displays less elapsed proper time than the inertial clock.

You are running into problems such early in your defense of the twin's
paradox. The proper time or spacetime divided by the speed of light
is constantly the same from frame of reference to another according to
the mathematics of the Lorentz transform ever so thoroughly presented
by Minkowski into a single equation. <shrug>

This is a
"paradox" only in that it appears to be inconsistent but is not.

The paradox exists because of time not spacetime. <shrug>

* Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal) Science
Vol. 177 pg 166-170 (1972) (experiment).

Yes, I am very aware of the experiment in which you have hailed it as
a success in testing SR. The result after nulling out the GR effect
indicates a violation of the principle of relativity since the mutual
time dilation demanded by the principle of relativity broke down and
was not observed at all. This can only be concluded as a failure in
SR.

Einstein proposed acceleration as a mean to circumvent the principle
of relativity, but it is proven to be nonsense due to lack of
mathematics showing so and the simple thought experiment where both
twins move away and come back at rest to each other again with the
same acceleration profile.

* Vessot et al., A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a
Space-borne Clock, Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181-204. Test of
Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 45 2081-2084.

* C. Alley, Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with
Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses, in Quantum Optics,
Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum
Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363-427.

* Bailey et al., Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for
positive and negative muons in a circular orbit, Nature 268 (July 28,
1977) pg 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979).

To validate SR in these experiments, you must observe a mutual time
dilation in accordance with the principle of relativity, and I
challenge you to prove so. By observing a time dilation from one
reference frame and a time advance in another reference frame breaks
down the principle of relativity. <shrug>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: time dilation
    ... The principle is right, ... the laws of physics in place. ... The principle of relativity -- as Galileo ... clock and put it on the floor next to you. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... he was right about relativity. ... The principle is right, ... particular the laws of electrodynamics are no longer of the same form ... clock and put it on the floor next to you. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... The principle is right, ... the laws of physics in place. ... The principle of relativity -- as Galileo ... clock and put it on the floor next to you. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are these people insane? Seriously.
    ... inertial reference frame. ... principle of relativity must ... The principle of Relativity is more than a law of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... about the principle of equivalence. ... I thought you scientists said Galileo was wrong about relativity. ... the laws of physics in place. ... Sorry, that's one reference frame, not two. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)