[Physics] About "logical errors"

[Doug Marett]

That quote from Tesla was great! Will have to use that one.

Doug

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Ilja Schmelzer <
ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:

> > Please see my http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html
>
> starts with
>
> > General Relativity Time Dilation Logical Error
> > A Major Error in Modern Physics
>
> This is already a very bad idea of starting such a thing.  If I invent
> an example of obvious nonsense, which no scientist will even start to
> read,  I use "Einstien's logical errors in Relativity".   Your title
> is already close to this.  Trust me: There are no logical errors in
> relativity.
>
> Then, what you provide as evidence, even if much better, does not fit
> into that "promise".  Essentially, you describe, as an error, that one
> should not restrict oneself to SR effects but also has to take into
> account GR.  Fine.  That was the point of inventing GR.  And certainly
> not an "error in modern physics", but only of some physicists who
> thought that GR effects will be negligible, so that they have not
> computed them.  (Or they were too stupid to compute them, whatever.)
>
> A logical error is on your side:  you make an approximate computation
> (yes, 18 digits is quite precise, but it is only an approximation,
> even 1800 digits would be, from a logical point of view)  and name the
> 0 result a "precise mathematical proof".  It is, of course, not.
>
> > General Relativity has exactly the opposite time-rate effect from what
> all Physicists believe to be true.
>
> False. Too lazy to search, but even wiki level physics would tell you
> that SR and gravity effects for, say, GPS satellites act in different
> directions, thus, will at least partially cancel each other.
>
> > which means that we also constantly accelerate (radially downward),
> > so that Einstein's General Relativity also applies to us.
>
> GR is necessary because gravity plays a role.  Acceleration can be
> handled with SR too, no necessity for GR.
>
> >  They always exactly cancel each other's net effects out for us!
>
> No. This is simply false.  For the surface of a planet, say, idealized
> as an ideal liquid, the time dilation on the whole surface may be,
> indeed, the same everywhere on the surface.  But the clock showings
> are already different at different heights, and for modern clocks this
> effect is visible already for a few meters or so (don't know the
> actual value) difference in height.
>
> > That claim is wrongly based on the Earth twin being in an Inertial Rest
> Frame
> > of Reference that was not accelerating
>
> No. Such claims are based on general formulas, in GR (which has to be
> used) inertial frames play no role at all, they are not even
> well-defined.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161102/79359496/attachment.html>