On Jul 6, 12:42 am, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 10:00 am, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2:46 pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > > harald says... > > > > > >Acceleration effects are not identified as gravitational fields in > > > > >Newtonian physics (which, as you now know, you didn't know); and > > > > >neither is that the case in SRT. In those theories acceleration is > > > > >"absolute", and no gravitational fields are caused by acceleration. > > > > > This is a topic for another discussion, but I'm talking about > > > > "pseudo-gravitational" fields, which crop up in both SR and Newtonian > > > > physics if you use accelerated coordinates. > > > > We agree on "pseudo", while Einstein rejected that. > > > > > >> I think it is because you have not made it very well. I still > > > > >> have no idea what your point is. > > > > > >Just study Einstein's paper carefully, > > > > > I want to know what *YOUR* point is. State it in your own words. > > > > I did, also in the part of my sentence that you exactly here snipped: > > > > *you'll know what theory the paradox challenges*. > > > > THAT (and only that) was my point: the clock paradox challenges the > > > General PoR. > > > > You certainly are aware that, despite Einstein's *suggestion* to that > > > effect in the introduction of his 1905 paper, SRT is *not* based on > > > the General PoR. > > > Strictly speaking the 'domain' of the 'special' theory of relativity > > is limited to inertial states. The original principle of relativity > > as expressed in Einstein's 1905 work covered only that domain. > > PS I overlooked the error you made here - a confusion that is often > seen. As Eric points out, SRT is *not* (never was!) limited to > inertial states. It's the same as for Newtonian mechanics. SRT uses > Poincare's PoR, which refers to Newtonian reference systems; and we > can switch reference system whenever we like, using the LT. Thus the > twin problem is a trivial exercise in SRT. The twin paradox however > was aiming Einstein's *General* PoR. > > Harald
'I' never said Lorentzian Relativity (LR) or it renormalized cousin (SR) is 'limited' to inertial frames. I said that, traditionally, the concept commonly called 'special' relativity is such (special) because it is considered the subset of general relativity limited to unaccelerated frames of reference. Nature places no barrier or boundary on relativity, human concepts do! This is why I refused to call LR 'LET'. LR is no more limited to such artificial boundaries than SR...
