"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
 in message news:<NkWxc.3366$F62.1537@news.cpqcorp.net>...

> "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote
> in message news:bdf02d35.0406100031.1430a5c8@posting.google.com...
>
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote
> > in message news:<ca7u3a$4ce$1@dolly.uninett.no>...
> >
> > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> skrev i
> > > melding news:bdf02d35.0406090613.425dfbcf@posting.google.com...
> > >  
> > > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in
> > > > message news:<ca6i6h$535$1@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > > >
> > > > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> skrev i
> > > > > melding news:bdf02d35.0406081430.1e9a1464@posting.google.com...
> > > > > 
> > > > > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > message news:<rMmxc.148794$38.7567485@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:bdf02d35.0406080907.13e0d289@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Can someone demonstrate
> > > > > > > > time contraction by using the standard light clock setup? Or perhaps
> > > > > > > > the concept cannot be explained within special relativity?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It can be explained,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes it can. Sal has already explained it. Awful term, he said. He will
> > > > > > be more careful with his language from now on. But you don't believe
> > > > > > him do you? Because he has already written
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sal: "Somewhere in the orbit, the clocks on ship B must run faster
> > > > > > than the clocks on ship A, as viewed from ship A's frame of
> > > > > > reference."
> > > > >
> > > > > Where ship A's frame of reference is an accelerated frame.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is not a terminological mistake. You know and sal knows it isn't.
> > > > > > This is a statement contradicting the second postulate
> > > > >
> > > > > How is it conradicting the second postulate?
> > > > > Elaborate, please.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK. We assume that we deal with the logical construction of special
> > > > relativity and do not use, explicitly or implicitly, "external"
> > > > hypotheses. First we have the proposition that time dilation (D) is a
> > > > corollary of the second postulate (L):
> > >
> > > It is - if the rate of the moving clock is measured in
> > > an inertial frame of reference.
> > >
> > > If the frame of reference is NOT inertial, then the matter
> > > is more complicated. A's frame of reference is NOT inertial.
> > >
> > > Look at the following scenario.
> > > We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
> > > at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
> > > Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
> > > both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
> > >
> > > At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
> > > Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
> > > dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0
> > > dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2
> > > That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
> > > to run fast in A's frame of reference.
> >
> >
> > A last remark. Check carefully your steps and if they are all correct,
> > substitute d=0 in the final result and send to Nature (or Science).
> > They will publish it immediately.
> 
> Giving dt'/dt = 1, meaning that, when the clocks are
> instantly at rest w.r.t. each other *and* coinciding,
> they mark the same (infinitesimal) time interval for a
> single pair of events.


In view of the enormous importance of the discovery

    dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2

I think renaming is unavoidable. So far that was simply the Theory of
Einstein. But I am sure the new name will be

    The Theory of Einstein-Andersen-Moortel-Sal

Changes in the order of the personal names are still possible but this
is not essential of course.

Pentcho Valev