Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:23:39 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
And it is in line with other statements you have made that indicate you
believe time is absolute.
Can you convince me it is not?
Assume clocks do not slow with motion.
Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space.
Assume this statement is true:
1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
What causality violating scenario can you devise
to show PoR conflicts with a constant
speed of light in the dielectric of free space?
I constantly see it refered to, but I can't
imagine what it is.
Sue...
--
bz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- References:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- Prev by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading