It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I've seen no argument from anybody on either side of the debate who has suggested that as the answer to Dingle's question.
Originally posted by masterp
The answer is "both". I do not understand why the OP does not accept that as a valid answer.
I believe that future historians of science will be very puzzled by
the fact that, in spite of the ineptitude of the published attempts to
answer Dingle’s Question and his other arguments, the scientific
world remains almost unanimous to this day in its belief that Dingle
was all wrong and his opponents all right. Although I have quoted in
this paper only a few attempts to answer Dingle’s arguments, I have
shown elsewhere [11,12] that several of Dingle’s opponents
contradicted one another in their attempts to show that there is no
contradiction in the special theory.
I went to the link in your signature. I found a thread in skunk works titled "antigravity" something ...and the OP talked about the pH of tomatoes, with no explanation of how the pH is supposed to make the tomato fly, or what the relevance of a pH of a tomato is to antigravity. Actually none of it made any sense to me.
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Chk out the graph on the link in my signature.
Even if the 60ns measurement is true, nobody has established that would be the result of acceleration. It could just as easily be the result of constant velocity. But chances are, it's not true so we should let the scientists do their job and see if they can find the error and refute it, or less likely, confirm it.
Originally posted by BobAthome
because it accelerates does this mean it "still",,,belongs,,, to Einstien??
and all applicable, E M and SPEED a constant,,,
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I didn't see any graphs, and I skimmed through the first several pages in that thread.
Considering all the scientific experiments proving Einstein's either right or so close to it we can't tell the difference, even if you had a graph claiming Einstein is wrong, it wouldn't be credible without a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence to back it up.edit on 26-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by mbkennel
Great answer.
I agree with pretty much everything you said except the part about Dingle's question being answered.
To explain what happens in accelerating inertial reference frames, requires that general relativity be invoked. Dingle (and apparently also the author of that pdf) insist that general relativity can't be used to answer the question, and that it must be answered only with special relativity.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Lol linear means the tangential velocity here and besides both the clocks experience equal accel.
"Linear" never ever means tangential velocity under any circumstance. Tangential velocity is the point velocity of an accelerating reference frame at any given instant. If velocity is linear, it has no tangent. The two are mutually exclusive.
Also, both clocks are certainly not experiencing equal acceleration.
Lol
We are Loling because we can't understand why you think a point on the pole has the same acceleration as a point on the equator.
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Cant understand wt you are lolling about.
Linear vel of a rotating body about some external point
and besides both clocks are on the same meridian
I didn't see any link in the OP of your antigravity thread.
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
There is a link in the subject OP...
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Cant understand wt you are lolling about.
Linear vel of a rotating body about some external point
and besides both clocks are on the same meridian
Originally posted by CLPrime
That doesn't matter. Both are accelerating due to gravity (it doesn't matter if the normal force cancels this out), and, beyond that, the one at the equator is experiencing additional acceleration due to rotation. That's a GR problem.edit on 27-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
Why do you think that two clocks on the same meridian accelerate equally?
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
Why do you think that two clocks on the same meridian accelerate equally?