[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 10

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2016-11-11 17:07 GMT+01:00, cj at mb-soft.com <cj at mb-soft.com>:
> 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.

In fact, he does not even SEE them, but INTERPRETS his observations in
such a way.  And this interpretation is, essentially, based on the
assumption that he is, actually, in rest.

Because if he would assume that he moves, it would not make sense to
assume that Einstein synchronization would give a reasonable result.
You throw a ball against a wall and run away until the ball hits you,
would you expect that the ball needs the same time to hit the wall and
then from the wall to hit you?  Of course, not, this does not make
sense. Only if you are at rest, this reasoning makes sense.  But this
is the rule of Einstein synchronization.

So, once Einstein synchronization gets everything wrong, except if
you, by accident, are really in rest, everything based on this
synchronization, depending on it, is obviously invalid too.

The valid point is that one cannot measure the own speed.  And this is
proven in that way.  Even if you move, but assume you are at rest, and
make various stupid conclusions based on this wrong premise, you will
not observe anything which is obviously wrong, which would allow you
to detect your error.

To conclude that above assumptions are equally valid is a classical
positivistic error.

> 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".

And this is completely wrong.  Acceleration is not a problem at all,
does not require any modification of SR formulas for clock time of a
moving clock, because the formula works for accelerated clocks as
well.

GR is only necessary if gravity is involved.

Note: This information does not depend at all on relying on Einstein
or SR or GR, I don't and see no necessity, it is simply accurate
information about what these theories really claim.

To criticize theories, one has to know them.  Else it is impossible,
independent of the correctness of the theories in question.