Re: Principle of equivalence

On Apr 17, 8:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 17, 3:43�pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 17, 2:49�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

The ones who don't believe in the principle of equivalence have been
to college. �I am probably the only former mental patient.
Robert B. Winn

The principle of relativity (which is what you call the principle of
equivalence) is held by both Galileo and Einstein (and modern
physicists). It's just that Galileo thought that the principle of
relativity implies t = t'. Newton believed the same thing, and Newton
had a better idea of the laws of physics than Galileo did -- and it's
the laws of physics that the principle of relativity applies to. For
the laws of physics that Newton was aware of, this implication works
just fine. However, Newton did not know the laws of electrodynamics,
which were discovered about 200 years later. When the principle of
relativity is applied to *all* the laws of physics, including the
electrodynamic ones that neither Galileo or Newton knew about, then
the implication that t=t' doesn't work anymore. And instead, *another*
relationship between t and t' was found that preserves the principle
of relativity for all known laws of physics.

PD

The implication that t'=t works just fine.  As I said, put a clock on
the floor.  That clock represents t'=t.  

No it doesn't. It represents t. You have one clock in one reference
frame. t'=t would be telling you the relationship between the
measurements made on TWO clocks in TWO different reference frames. You
do know what a reference frame is, don't you?

You cannot then use the same
symbol t' to represent time on a cesium clock in a moving frame of
reference S' because that moving clock is running slower than the one
on the floor.  If you use the same symbol t' to represent two
different rates of time, you have made an error in mathematics.  The
Galilean transformation equations plainly say t'=t.
Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages
Loading