🚀 go-pugleaf

Daryl McCullough in news:enlnkg011kv@drn.newsguy.com :
> Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:enjf3m$q39$1@atlas.ip-plus.net :

>>>> Two distant observers with each a (transversal) LIGHT CLOCK orbit
>>>> at a constant distance around their common center (assumed at rest).

>> Let us assume a relative speed of v = 0.99995 c (with gamma = 100)
>> of each observer with respect to the other. Deviation from inertial
>> motion can be made as small as we like by choosing a large enough
>> radius of the orbit in relation to the height of the light clock.

> If the clocks are in circular orbits, then deviation from inertial
> motion is *not* negligible.

Do you understand the light clock reasoning? See for instance:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/text_module4.htm

The light clock reasoning is EQUIVALENT to the SR constancy of
the speed of light. So if in a certain situation the light clock
reasoning cannot be applied without contradiction, then also c
cannot be constant. The Lorentz transformation ensures the
constancy of light not by some kind of magic, but by a very
concrete and even transparent mechanism.

If the height of the light clock is 15 cm, then one cycle of the
light clock lasts 2 * 15 cm / c = 1 nanosecond. In our concrete
thought experiment that implies: c can only be constant with
respect to both observers, if to one hundred clock cycles (100 ns)
of the own clock corresponds only one cycle (1 ns) of the opposite
clock.

So all the necessary happens within 100 ns, and therefore within
a relative movement of less than 300 m. Compare these 300 m with
e.g. the earth-sun distance (150 000 000 km).

Let us change the thought experiment and assume that the two
observers orbit on a regular hexagon and are always exactly
opposite with respect to the center of the hexagon. Let us
further assume that traversing one segment lasts 1000 clock
cycles (and the full orbit 6000 cycles).

Let us start with the situation when both observers (moving
antiparallelly) are at the center of opposite hexagon segments.
In this situation simultaneity is the same with respect to both
observers and to the center of the hexagon. 500 own clock cycles
later, each observer reaches the end of the segment. But to these
500 own clock cycles correspond only 5 cycles of the opposite
clock (gamma = 100). So just before entering the next hexagon
segment, the opposite clock is 495 clock cycles in the past. Just
after having changed direction (in order to move along the next
segment) however, the opposite clock is 495 clock in the future.

This means that during change of direction the opposite clock
accomplishes 990 actual clock cycles. So the attempt to garantee
constancy of c with respect to both observers during inertial
movement leads to an absurdly high or even infinite light speed
in the opposite light clock when changing direction.

Interestingly, my refutation of Special Relativity is somehow
similar to a failed solution of the twin paradox by Einstein:

"Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
 in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
 written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a critic
 and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
 of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
 relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins, and
 he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
 gravitational time dilation during the brief periods of
 acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

> What is *not* legitimate is to use the Lorentz transformations,
> because those are only valid for transformations between inertial
> coordinate systems.

Do you mean that Special Relativity does not explain the
Michelson-Morley experiment? "Transformations between inertial
coordinate systems" are certainly not applicable to the sun-earth
system.

Cheers, Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/physics1.html