From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 02:37:27 MDT
Louis:
> Relativity says that all inertial frames are the same.
> Non-inertial frames may be different.
SR says that. The special principle of relativity says more.
But all that, imo, does not explain the "clock paradox" (if
any).
Keating, i.e., says that for both SR and GR the effect of
variable aging is a function of asymmetries in the metric
of space-time. Asymmetry is, of course, the right word to use.
> Only because people, like Dingle, quote the theory wrong,
> and then show that (their version of) it is contradictory.
I don't think Dingle quoted the theory wrong saying this (below).
Dingle's syllogism does not involve non-inertial frames,
necessarily.
1 - According to the postulate of relativity, if two bodies
(for example, two identical clocks) separate and re-unite,
there is no observable phenomenon that will show in an absolute
sense that one rather than the other has moved.
2 - If on re-union one clock were retarded by a quantity depending
on their relative motion, and the other not, that phenomenon would
show that the first has moved and not the second.
3 - Hence, if the postulate of relativity is true, the clocks must
be retarded equally or not at all: in either case, their readings
will agree on re-union if they agreed at separation.
Donal E. Knuth [in "Foreword to A = B", (1997)] says that science
is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art
is everything else we do.
Well, a computer would perhaps understand Dingle's syllogism.
I doubt it could understand any of those 55 different solutions
of that "paradox" (if any).
s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:25 MST