No. You're just taking the acceleration observer B would experience if he were to traverse around a similarly large circle and concentrating it to tighter arcs separated by stretches of inertial movement. You can't just dismiss the "slight gravity-like pull" of turning through these arcs (at relativistic speeds) and then claim that "practically the whole time" he was travelling with no acceleration. He certainly would experience very significant acceleration if he's moving fast enough to induce a time-dilation effect on his local clock compared to observer A, and this is going to be true regardless of the size of the circle (or polygon).
I agree with that. Actually I had changed the speed to be slower, so maybe it's not very relativistic. You seem to be saying that the time dilation effect will depend only on the speed, and not on the size of the polygon. If so, then I disagree. I can make the polygon larger without changing the speed, and I would expect observer B to have a greater time dilation effect. Anyway, your explanation that the speed of light is not c in the accelerating frame still works, it's just that it only holds for the corners of the polygon, not the sides. Yet your explanation holds for the entire circle, so I suppose it is a good enough explanation.
I have already been through this. I gave you a 6 step procedure to the conclusion. I'll ask you again, which step in the logic is false?
Nothing has been explained to me that is valid. Now, I gave AN a 6 step set of operation that lead to the conclusion. Which step is false? If you can't provide an answer, clearly I am offering logic beyond your grasp.
If you are claiming time dilation does not matter, then you are claiming Einstein's statement regarding time dilation and a clock moved in a circle is false. And, I already refuted any contention you had that contradicted my conclusions. Thus far, you are only flailing around. Now, I provided a 6 step argument for AN of which no one can refute the ultimate conclusion that SR is false. Can you refute the 6 steps I provided, yes or no.
First, I gave the gamma given by Einstein which was simply an approximation given by him. Next, where you have failed is that let's assume each measures c with different times on their clocks. Then given the fact that each must measure the same units in the y direction, your conclusion implies one light sphere is located at 2 different places on a common y axis for the two clocks, which is a contradiction of nature. So, your logic is a complete failure.
If you want to use mirrors, be my guest and open a new thread. This thread is about the experiment I provided and the precise 6 step sequence of reasoning I provided to AN. Now, which step is false?
So submit it to a journal and claim your Nobel Prize. You didn't provide a single drop of actual SR calculation. The onus is on the person making the claim, the onus is on you. I have had enough of walking you through remedial maths and physics and you refusing to listen. If you cannot justify your claim we have nothing to discuss. Asserting is not justifying. Unfortunately I believe you are simply too stupid to grasp relativity. You go around saying things like "The conclusion is therefore I have refuted relativity" or "The conclusion is therefore I have refuted Cantor" when you haven't done anything of the sort. Your willingness to lie, either through malice or ignorance, about our discussions about Cantor shows you have no intellectual integrity. If you're so sure you're right why are you here? Why are you telling us when you could be telling journals? You've already shown you won't listen to us when we correct you, both in terms of maths and concepts, and you believe we're all insufficiently capable to grasp what relativity or Cantor supposedly imply. You don't want a discussion, you want a monologue. You've given 6 points. 6 assertions. Demonstrate they are valid and lead to the conclusion you claim they do by doing the maths. You haven't done it yet so we have nothing to discuss other than your dishonesty.
Make sure you include Einstein's statement in with your reasoning or indicate why it is false. Otherwise, the angular acceleration is too small to consider. And otherwise, give its effect on the moving clock as t'. I have already been through this. Then, remove it from the calculations and you are left with SR time dilation.
You are not telling the truth. I provided the complete mathematics to solve the problem. Here it is for the 3rd time. Also, I gave you a 6 step procedure to my conclusion. You have still been completely unable to refute any of the steps that lead to the fatal conclusion that SR is logically false. What is the problem? It is quite clear, here is the math refute it or submit. Further, in this thread, I am very specific, a light pulse is emitted when the clocks are common. One clock moves in a circle and returns to the other clock. Here is Einstein's statement. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow. Next, since the y-axis is perpendicular to the line of travel, it is not length contracted. So, assume both frames the distance the pulse traveled is d. Also, assume the time on the clock with the stationary observer is t. By SR, c = d/t. However, since the moving clock moves in a circle, then there exists some very very small time differential from the stationary clock, say t'. Then, we must apply Einstein reasoning, the moving clock shows a time of t/γ. So, the actual time on the moving clock is t' + t/γ. According to Einstein, c is a constant between the frames and time dilation is a result of this assumption. Now, since t' is absolute, we can remove t' from the calculations and all we have left is what Einstein claimed as the time on the moving clocks as t/γ. But, that means, c' = d/(t/γ) for the moving clock. We also have c = d/t for the stationary clock. But, under SR all observers must measure c as the speed of light. Hence, c = d/t = c' = d/(t/γ). This means γ=1. But, if γ=1, then v = 0, which is a contradiction. There is the specific math and logic. Your turn with your math.
I don't see the contradiction, I would think that the only time d/t=d/(t/y) is when y=1. That would in a sense be the only place the two lines intersect. At this point the v=0 and at all other points d/t =/= d/(t/y). This would be because the dialated frame of reference has become the undilated frame at this velocity of zero. I think you are treating two coordinate systems as if they are the same system, you have to figure out how to treat them as two different systems. After all, that is what the prime symbol represents. So then these two coordinate systems only produce the same answer at v=0. That makes perfect sense.
That is only true for the stationary clock. It's been explained to you several times: the moving clock (or the clock that moved) sees any distance in the t frame as length-contracted. so does not follow. But you're too attached to "Einstein was wrong", aren't you? Noone can point out a mistake to someone with wilful ignorance as a constant companion. What you have is a failure of logic and the stubbornness to maintain you don't. Congratulations; I bet you're a big hit at parties.
I have tried to teach you SR. Maybe Einstein can. Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Please, please teach me what the correspondence between motion (of say, a clock), a rigid sphere, and propagation of light is. But if you're implying that a spherical wavefront of light is like a rigid sphere, then you got it wrong. You twat. In the clock-moving-in-a-closed-curve scenario, if the y axis of the stationary clock is perpendicular to the xz plane the moving clock moves in, the moving clock doesn't see this axis as perpendicular does it? In that case, the moving clock has to account for length contraction in the y direction, relative to the coordinates of the stationary clock. In fact distances in the x and z directions from the stationary clock are also length-contracted in the moving clock's frame, because the moving clock moves away from all three of the stationary clock's 'axes' in R[sup]3[/sup] as it traverses the xz plane relative to same. Doesn't it?
Don't change the subject, Chinglu. Einstein's specific quotes supporting this effect are irrelevant because his SR postulate on the constancy of light only applies to inertial frames. This is well known. Haven't you ever heard of the time dilation effects of a centrifuge? All of these experiments are basically variants of the centrifuge concept. If you're just looking for attention then I'm done feeding the troll but it's already been explained to you why you haven't dismantled Relativity. And you cannot just dismiss angular acceleration with a wave of your hand like that! hahaha Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is from another forum
Yes, in both clocks' coordinate systems, the distance the light travels up the y axis is d, as long as the y axis is always held perpendicular to the direction of motion of the moving clock. Of course that means moving the y axis constantly. That works for a light sphere which was emitted at the center of the circle, for example. And it is also true that the stationary clock will measure the time as t, while the moving clock will measure the time as t/γ. Well, that statement is where you are getting yourself cornfused. It's just a little more complicated than that. All inertial observers measure the speed of light to be c, but an accelerating observer only measures the speed of light to be c locally. The way you have your thought experiment set up, the light is not local to the accelerated observer (the moving clock). You can see this clearly if you use a polygon instead of a circe, and let the traveling clock move at constant speed along each side of the polygon. The speed of light is clearly c for that clock, but its simultaneity changes every time it rounds a corner of the polygon. Oh, and you cannot talk about a clock in orbit and also say that you want to disregard its acceleration due to gravity. If you get rid of the gravitational field, the clock will travel a straight line instead of a circle. So you would have to include a little rocket engine to force the clock to travel a circular path instead of a straight line, and once you do that you have included acceleration again.
