🚀 go-pugleaf

Sorcerer wrote:
> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:rvflp2ltoun34hcs762k0k596o7b5bu77h@4ax.com...
> | On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:01:13 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
> | wrote:
> |
> | >Wolfgang G. Gasser wrote:
> | >> Two distant observers with each a (transversal) LIGHT CLOCK orbit at a
> | >> constant distance around their common center (assumed at rest).
> | >>
> | >> Special relativity postulates that the light beams in both light clocks
> | >> propagate at c relative to both (almost inertially moving) observers.
> | >
> | >That is the key point -- these observers are NOT moving inertially. The
> | >approximation is important (see below), and negates your claims.
> | >
> | >
> | >> This requires that for each observer the clock rate of the opposite clock
> | >> CAN be lower than the clock rate of his own clock.
> | >> Because of symmetry and unchanging distance, clock rate CANNOT differ.
> | >
> | >The error is in your gedanken, not in SR itself.
> | >
> | >For approximately inertial motion, the basic equations of SR are only
> | >APPROXIMATELY valid. You ignored the approximation you, yourself, made.
> | >
> | >At a deeper level, however, such orbiting observers cannot be treated as
> | >inertial observers, because a circle is different topologically from a
> | >line. In SR's Minkowski spacetime, inertial observers move in straight
> | >lines, not in circles, and the basic equations of SR are valid for
> | >inertial observers and coordinates. Yes, for a very large radius a
> | >circle is approximately a straight line for a small portion of its
> | >circumference, but if one uses the fact it is a circle in any way, or
> | >uses a large fraction of the circumference, then these are not inertial
> | >observers, not even approximately.
> |
> | So the GPS clocks that you claim prove SR correct move in straight lines do
> | they Snipper?
> |
> | ....You become more of a comedian with every post...
>
> He's like Dork Van de psychopath, fired from his job and
> makes it up as he goes along.
>
> "The basic equations of SR are only APPROXIMATELY valid"

Liar.  You snipped out the first part of the sentence, leaving a
fragment that is misleading.
You are dishonest, jaw-droppingly stupid, willfully ignorance,
incapable of learning, extemely vulgar, and ugly; in short, you are
putrid vile scum.