Re: Postulate #2: Time Dilation
ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: John Park: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Previous message: Jay R. Yablon: "Re: New Paper Posted"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Postulate #2: Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Postulate #2: Time Dilation"
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Postulate #2: Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:10:50 -0800
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Postulate #2:
>
> Plane leaves an Inertial Reference Frame Platform and reaches a
> constant velocity of c/3, travels a certain distance and then returns
> to the Platform.
>
> Time dilated during acceleration becomes *less and less a relevant*
> factor to the plane's TOTAL time dilation the *FURTHER* the Planes
> travels.
That's quite correct. That's why you can't account for this
effect as being due to acceleration.
SR doesn't do that. SR predicts that the elapsed time
on a clock displaced by (dt,dx) is ds = sqrt((dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2).
Integrate ds along the two world lines and you will see the difference.
And ds is Lorentz invariant so that all observers agree about the
outcome of the experiment.
John Anderson
- Next message: John Park: "Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?"
- Previous message: Jay R. Yablon: "Re: New Paper Posted"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Postulate #2: Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Postulate #2: Time Dilation"
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Postulate #2: Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|