|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Jim AkerlundJim Akerlund Date: May 8, 2008 16:13
No, I'm not saying Special Relativity or General Relativity are wrong,
I am referring to a different situation. This different situation was
written by Einstein for his book "Relativity: The Special And The
General Theory", in the chapter called; "Behavior Of Clocks And
Measuring-Rods On A Rotating Body Of Reference". I now quote the
suspect text.
"We start of again from quite special cases, which we have
frequently used before. Let us consider a space-time domain in which
no gravitational field exists relative to a reference-body K whose
state...
|
| Show full article (7.54Kb) |
|
| | 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: Oh NoOh No Date: May 9, 2008 00:17
Thus spake Jim Akerlund yahoo.com>>
>No, I'm not saying Special Relativity or General Relativity are wrong,
>I am referring to a different situation. This different situation was
>written by Einstein for his book "Relativity: The Special And The
>General Theory", in the chapter called; "Behavior Of Clocks And
>Measuring-Rods On A Rotating Body Of Reference". I now quote the
>suspect text.
>
> "We start of again from quite special cases, which we have
>frequently used before. Let us consider a space-time domain in which
>no gravitational field exists relative to a reference-body K whose
>state of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian
>reference-body as regards the domain considered, and the results of
>the special theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose
>the same domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is
>rotating uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we
>shall imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which
>rotates uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who
>is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which ...
|
| Show full article (7.03Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: harryharry Date: May 9, 2008 07:36
>
> No, I'm not saying Special Relativity or General Relativity are wrong,
> I am referring to a different situation. This different situation was
> written by Einstein for his book "Relativity: The Special And The
> General Theory", in the chapter called; "Behavior Of Clocks And
> Measuring-Rods On A Rotating Body Of Reference". I now quote the
> suspect text.
>
> "We start of again from quite special cases, which we have
> frequently used before. Let us consider a space-time domain in which
> no gravitational field exists relative to a reference-body K whose
> state of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian
> reference-body as regards the domain considered, and the results of
> the special theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose
> the same domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is
> rotating uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we
> shall imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which
> rotates uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who ...
|
| Show full article (3.64Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jim AkerlundJim Akerlund Date: May 9, 2008 14:03
On May 9, 9:14 am, "harry" wrote:
>> No, I'm not saying Special Relativity or General Relativity are wrong,
>> I am referring to a different situation. This different situation was
>> written by Einstein for his book "Relativity: The Special And The
>> General Theory", in the chapter called; "Behavior Of Clocks And
>> Measuring-Rods On A Rotating Body Of Reference". I now quote the
>> suspect text.
>
>> "We start of again from quite special cases, which we have
>> frequently used before. Let us consider a space-time domain in which
>> no gravitational field exists relative to a reference-body K whose
>> state of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian ...
|
| Show full article (5.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken S. TuckerKen S. Tucker Date: May 10, 2008 00:50
To Mr. Akerlund
My goodness sir, I have the book, and I admire
your typing skills and patience!
("pi" is understood").
On May 8, 4:13 pm, Jim Akerlund yahoo.com> wrote:> No, I'm not saying Special Relativity or General Relativity are wrong,
> I am referring to a different situation. This different situation...
|
| Show full article (8.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: harryharry Date: May 13, 2008 09:21
> On May 9, 9:14 am, "harry" wrote:
[...]
>>> The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks
>>> and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at
>>> exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with
>>> reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on
>>> his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
>> [...]
>>> Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space coordinates
>>> also presents insurmountable difficulties. If the observer applies
>>> his standard measuring-rod (a rod which is short compared with the
>>> radius of the disc) tangentially to the edge of the disc, then as
>>> judged from the Galileian system, the length of this rod will be less
>>> than 1, since according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a
>>> shortening in the direction of the motion. On the other hand, the ...
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ken S. TuckerKen S. Tucker Date: May 13, 2008 10:33
On May 13, 9:45 am, "harry"
wrote:
>> On May 9, 9:14 am, "harry" wrote:
>>> "Jim Akerlund" yahoo.com> wrote in message>
> [...]
>>>> The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks
>>>> and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at
>>>> exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with
>>>> reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on
>>>> his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
>>> [...]
>>>> Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space coordinates ...
|
| Show full article (4.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
