22-June-2004, 05:23 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
|
|
Quote:
Sam5:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by milli360
Quote:
Sam5:
In the “closed curve” thought experiment of Section 4, the K observer sees the K’ clock move in the closed curve, while the K’ observer sees the K clock move in the closed curve, so there is no “turn-around” of any single clock in SR theory.
|
Here it is, in the last paragraph of that Section 4: "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A"
You can't move in a closed curve without turning around. And "one" means "single".  |
He doesn’t consider acceleration in the 1905 SR theory, and the theory also has either system and either clock as being considered the “stationary” one to the observers that remain with it. If an observer remains with K then he sees the K’ clock move in the “closed curve”. If he remains with K’ then he sees the K clock move in a closed curve.
It was probably this thought experiment that caused him to start thinking about accelerative effects, and of course he later concluded, as Lorentz had done many years before him, that an accelerated atomic clock would tick slower than a non-accelerated one.
You can find his progression of papers related to acceleration in Volumes 2 through 5 of the “Collected Papers” series.
When he finally worked out the acceleration effects on atomic clocks, then the paradox disappears, since only one clock really accelerates and slows down, and the slow clock sees the fast clock tick fast, while the fast clock sees the slow clock tick slow.
But he hasn’t gotten that far yet in the premature, impetuous, an precociously erroneous SR theory of 1905, and his 1905 errors led to his 1905 paradox.
Quote:
|
Are you seriously saying that you think the top and the bottom of the pyramid experience the same acceleration due to gravity?
|
He doesn’t consider acceleration in the 1905 SR theory, and the theory also has either system and either clock as being considered the “stationary” one to the observers that remain with it. If an observer remains with K then he sees the K’ clock move in the “closed curve”. If he remains with K’ then he sees the K clock move in a closed curve.
It was probably this thought experiment that caused him to start thinking about accelerative effects, and of course he later concluded, as Lorentz had done many years before him, that an accelerated atomic clock would tick slower than a non-accelerated one.
You can find his progression of papers related to acceleration in Volumes 2 through 5 of the “Collected Papers” series.
When he finally worked out the acceleration effects on atomic clocks, then the paradox disappears, since only one clock really accelerates and slows down, and the slow clock sees the fast clock tick fast, while the fast clock sees the slow clock tick slow.
But he hasn’t gotten that far yet in the premature, impetuous, an precociously erroneous SR theory of 1905, and his 1905 errors led to his 1905 paradox.
|
I notice that you posted the same response to both items, but it doesn't really seem appropriate to either.
In the first response, it is yourself that is misinterpreting the Einstein paper, not Einstein. He got that part right--but you keep insisting on a misinterpretation of the theory in order to insist that it's wrong. That's your fault, no one else's.
In the second response, I'm baffled. You brought up the pyramids--and we were discussing general relativity effects. I'm not sure what that stuff about special relativity has to do with it.
|