🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
> (I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
> Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
> Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126:
> "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge a deux des miennes; dans
> l'autre, vous comparez la mienne a deux des votres; ceci permet a
> chacun de nous d'observer, sans absurdite, que l'horloge de l'autre
> est plus lente que la sienne."
>
> Translation from French: "In one case, I compare your clock with two
> of mine; in the other case, you compare my clock with two of yours:
> this allows each of us to observe, without absurdity, that the clock
> of the other is slower than his own."
>
> The following observer has two clocks placed on the periphery of a
> rotating disc, and is going to compare them with a single non-rotating
> clock (at rest):
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
> Albert Einstein (1879-1955).  Relativity: The Special and General
> Theory.  1920.
> XXIII.  Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring Rods on a Rotating Body of
> Reference
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible
> of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction..."
>
> The only difficulty comes from the fact that the two rotating clocks
> are not inertial. However, by increasing the diameter of the disc
> while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can make
> them virtually inertial.
>
> That is, Einsteinians will make two simple modifications in Einstein's
> rotating-disc experiment:
>
> 1. The non-rotating clock (at rest in K) is no longer placed at the
> center of the disc; rather, it is outside the disc but close to the
> rotating periphery where it can be directly compared with passing
> rotating clocks fixed on the periphery.
>
> 2. Einsteinians will increase the diameter of the disc while keeping
> the linear speed of the periphery constant. So clocks fixed on the
> rotating periphery will become virtually inertial.
>
> The two modifications will allow Einsteinians to prove, in accordance
> with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, both:
>
> 1. that rotating clocks run slower than non-rotating clocks.
>
> 2. that non-rotating clocks run slower than rotating clocks.
>
> Finally, Einsteinians will see in the dictionary what REDUCTIO AD
> ABSURDUM means.

In a heated discussion extremely silly zombie Tom Roberts explained
how Einsteinians can trap a long pole inside a short barn while less
silly zombie Dono saw an absurdity in this simple corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/cac579628f39e93d?

Now it is time for zombie Roberts to explain why the non-rotating
observer (at rest in K) sees rotating clocks running slower than non-
rotating clocks while the rotating observer (sitting eccentrically on
the disc K') sees non-rotating clocks running FASTER than rotating
clocks. Zombie Dono may discover another absurdity in zombie Roberts'
explanation and may even pay some more attention to Einstein's two
confessions:

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com