Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity. Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:54:16 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <7d85d377b11e1ba228de32f853e66537@www.novabbs.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2116070"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="jbf9ODw05erRG5e/iTB5O4FuOiiR328AFAd4frgdrX4"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Posting-User: 41df9b4c39cd8dd5aa85a9827acb9c5529cd7dea X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$4xrVAcepzikPz/y95mCfAudQb07AODSKN6QIat.qsKpiLUxTt9AMa Bytes: 2539 Lines: 41 On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:50:21 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity. > > > It ditches it. > > According to special relativity time dilation is caused by relative > motion per se. Not "caused" but "is correlated to". We do not know the cause. > This has been rightly criticized as self-contradictory. It's not self-contradictory, hence it cannot be criticised in this way. > General relativity says the clock that is accelerating is time dilating. > This makes the cause absolute motion and not relative motion. Again, this is not a "cause" but a correlation. Regardless, you introduced a false dichotomy. What both special and general relativity say is the same: proper time is the trajectory arc length. The rest (time dilation, etc.) are related to a coordinate choice and the choice of a simultaneity criterion. This criterion can be arbitrary and different for typical special and general relativistic concepts. There is nothing contradictory about that, it's like preferring the geographic north to the magnetic north (or vice-versa) as your angle of reference, depending on your needs. > Therefore, GR ditches SR, which is a distinctly different and false > theory. No. BTW, whenever you end up in a cul-de-sac like this, always ask yourself: "This is a trivial observation, so the probability that nobody had not noticed it before is exactly ZERO. Therefore, I'm probably making a mistake somewhere." You won't get much progress in this business by fantasising. -- Jan