🚀 go-pugleaf

"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?

So the Henry Wilsons that you claim have a physics degree,
don't really have much to show, do they?
  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html

Dirk Vdm