Re: Van Flandern & Rethinking Relativity?

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: 27 Jan 2005 15:00:38 -0800

I see Dirk and Jesse did not answer my direct
questions, I won't repeat them, it seems my
point that GR simplified looks like SR, and
therefore SR can be applied in a very restricted
manner to the "twin paradox".

When a clock is subject to variable acceleration,
strictly speaking, the partial of the metric &g_uv
is not zero. That's the same effect as a g-field
would have, and certainly SR doesn't hold in
g-fields.

SR can explain the twin paradox, in an
introductory way using very simplifying
assumptions, but's really just a simplification
of GR. If it weren't why is SR not used
for g-fields?

Here's a hint, the speed of light "c" is
equal in all inertial frames, but one cannot
assume that in non-inertial frames.

The speed of light is the basis of the relation
of length and time. In SR c=L/T = L'/T',
but in accelerating frames that cannot
be assumed, please see Weinberg's
"Grav & Cosmo" Eq.(9.2.5) for ref.
I think maybe this discussion is decaying
to semantics.
Ken S. Tucker