Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:41:02 -0500
Koobee Wublee wrote:
To validate SR in these experiments, you must observe a mutual time
dilation in accordance with the principle of relativity,
I keep telling you that you do not understand SR, and this statement of yours is direct evidence of that. There is no such requirement, because the PoR refers to INERTIAL FRAMES and these experiments do not have two inertial frames -- in ALL cases one observer is accelerated. As I said, Bailey et al is the best test of SR, because it is the only one for which gravitation is negligible; in it the muons in the storage ring are accelerated at ~10^18 g -- not at all negligible. And they are moving in a circle, so you cannot deceive yourself that they are inertial unless you completely ignore what is blazingly obvious.
Tom Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Androcles
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- References:
- Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Paul V.
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Peter Christensen
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Relativity Principle Revisited
- Prev by Date: Re: a crane of light, is this possible?
- Next by Date: Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- Next by thread: Re: Relativity Principle Revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|