From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Sun Aug 25 2002 - 23:42:23 MDT
Serafino:
> Einstein avoided this situation. He imagined (1905) just one clock
> moving, or (later) accelerating. What about the other?
Louis:
>This is because symetrical situations are boring.
"This is because .." But how do you know?
> Btw SR can manage non-inertial frames.
> Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
Louis:
>It can "handle" all situations fine.
Are you sure, Louis?
Serafino:
> My point was just to show that the situation is still messy,
> after all these years.
Louis:
>Only becuase people, like Dingle, quote the theory wrong, and then show
>that (their version of) it is contradictory.
Again, are you sure?
This relativity and quantum physics is not simple. If a person wants
to disagree with those who have studied it for years, or their whole
life, then I think that it requires that one has studied it themself
for some years, at least at the graduate quantum theoretical physics
level. I remember with my undergraduate physics class that special
relativity was presented as something 'solved'. It wasn't until my
graduate physics quantum course (I had one only), that the
complexities emerged, and I learned that the topic was not so
simple.
There's nothing wrong with being confident, but I suggest you
consider the possibility that _maybe_ it's not as simple as you think
it is, and that maybe the reason that people like Einstein and
Dingle (and Dirac) avoided it or said it was messy, is because
they didn't have an answer (rather than it being boring or
they didn't know the theory).
Amara
-- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara@amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anais Nin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:25 MST