harald says... > >On Jul 3, 1:02=A0pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> harald says... >> >> >If you google search, you will find me explaining that Einstein >> >claimed to have solved GRT's clock paradox. ;-) >> >> The use of GR to explain the results of the twin paradox is a little >perverse, > >Sorry but no, you missed the point (how is that possible after all >these years?). The original clock or twin paradox is NOT the SRT >exercise of textbooks at all, despite the fact that most confused >commentators parrot that error. Instead, it is a challenge to GRT's >postulate that an accelerated reference system may be considered to be >"in rest".
I'm not sure what paradox you are referring to, then.
GR doesn't really *have* a notion of "rest". For a particular coordinate system, you can use the term "at rest" to mean that the time derivative of the spacial coordinates are all zero, but that doesn't have any particular physical meaning, except in the cases where the metric is time-independent.
>> because GR is a generalization of SR. In the case of empty space far >> from any large gravitating bodies, GR reduces to SR, so any GR solution >> to the twin paradox would have to have already been a solution in SR. > >Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to *MY* point. It is my point. And this is my thread, so my point counts.
