🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Cardinale wrote:

> 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.
> 

Evidently you're only able to see the best in people.