[Physics] About "logical errors"

[Ilja Schmelzer]

> 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.