[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 10

[cj at mb-soft.com]

To Tom Hollings:

Regarding BOTH SR and GR, yes, Einstein was right when he noted that "aging" and "observed  mass" and "observed distance" are all very precisely affected.  But my point was different.  Yes,  the Earth observer for Einstein SAW each of those effects.  But in no way would  he ever DETECT any of those effects himself.

I ask each of you to remember that Einstein made clear (regarding SR  effects) that EITHER perspective is perfectly valid.  Specifically, when that "other observer" looked at the "rapidly receding Earth", he sees all of those OBSERVED effects.  (Bur he never FEELS or detects any of them).  IF your "one sided reasoning" was true, then we on Earth would "age slowly", "move shorter distances" and "have greater mass", none of which are true.

My point was that each of you needs to be very careful regarding assumptions and speculations, where strict logic really needs to follow the Thought Experiments of Einstein.  With the result resembling what you describe, that each of the Special Relativity  effects are NEVER actually felt or detected at either end, only OBSERVED from the other end.

Your comments here seem to recognize my point that BOTH the Earth observer sees slower aging of the other scientist AND that other scientist sees our Earth and its scientists also aging slowly.  You never got around to explaining HOW you see this happening, although I guarantee that it is a fact.  They each OBSERVE the other aging and clocks at 80% the rate.  If you choose to descreibe that as "illusory" you are free to do so.

But if you apply brutally strict logic in that, you encounter really difficult issues.  The actual solution for that is really obvious, that one or the other of them would have had to accelerate and later decelerate to everr meet, meaning that General Relativity applies AND that it has an OPPOSITE effect from SR, that is a "time speeding".  If you apply logic really carefully, the cumulative effect is that the Time Dilation (of SR) exactly balances out the "time speedinng" (of GR) if the two are ever to meet again in the same Inertial Rest Frame.

I also noticed in a different note today from yours, someone said that at Earth's equatorial radius, the acceleration is rather small.  True, but due the math or look in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics for the Centripetal Acceleration.  And then do the math for the Equivalency Principle using that acceleration.  (It is actually about one three-hundredth of our surface gravitational field, actually not that tiny.)

I just ask that IF any of you are going to rely on Einstein (or the young Tesla), please be very careful regarding your strict logic.  THEN, you can have great discussions with each other.

Carl Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161111/9e75569a/attachment.html>