sci.physics.relativity

"Sue..." wrote in message
news: @ ...
> On Aug 7, 5:15 pm, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>> bill wrote:
>>
>> > So he comes to the conclusion that in accordance with the Lorentz
>> > equations of special relativity his sister is REALLY getting younger
>> > and that the earth is REALLY spinning backwards on its axis [...]
>>
>> He comes to that conclusion based on his own elementary measurements,
>> and his own elementary calculations based on those measurements.
> And elementary measurment and calculation woud be
> application of Doppler shift to the view of remote clocks.

The effect is not due to doppler shift at all .. doppler shift can either
add to or reduce how you would physically see the time dilation in a moving
frame. Its a real slowing of the processes of the moving frame wrt the
stationary frame.

NOTE: There is no earth spining backward or people getting younger in the
twins paradox. There is a different in the relative 'rate' of time for the
two twins .. but not in direction. Otherwise there wouldbe causality
issues.

>> IF
>> our universe IS described by special relativity, then those
>> measurements and calculations will be as I have described, and are
>> mandated by the Lorentz equations.
>
> Our universe is not described by special relativity.

It is quite nicely (for the cases where SR applies) and by GR in cases where
we need to take gravitational effects into account.

[snip]
>> In Newtonian
>> physics (and in our everyday experiences), their meanings tend to
>> be fairly obvious, and usually aren't prone to much misunderstanding.
>> But in trying to understand what special relativity says, one must be
>> excruciatingly precise about every statement one makes. I think if
>> you give some serious thought about EXACTLY what you mean by "really",
>> I suspect you'll find that it's difficult to be precise about that
>> word.
>
> If you are showing us that Newton's light predicts absurd
> aging of twins, you will be happy to know that physicists
> rejected the Newton's notions about 100 years ago and
> adopted Maxwell's light model.

It has NOTHING to do with the light propogation method .. althouh you
continually post off-topic replies about light propogation at every
possibile opportunity .. Is it because you ahve a nice bunch of quotes you
can copy and paste .. or that you just don't understand SR .. I strongly
suspect it is both

[snip more irrelevance]