Reply to Schlegel

Abstract

SCHLEGEL'S objection to my calculation of the relativistic time keeping behaviour of terrestrial clocks¹ brings up certain questions of semantics perhaps, but, more important, substantial and subtle aspects of the theory which when ignored or misunderstood often lead to confusion. I am convinced of the basic correctness of my conclusion that the theory predicts that the time recorded by a clock after circumnavigation of the Earth depends both on the direction of the circumnavigation and on the rotational speed of the Earth. The kinetic relativistic effect is not always “purely relational” for finite (non-infinitesimal) time intervals. That is, it does not depend solely on relative speed in all cases, for if it did there could be no theoretical resolution of the clock (or twin) paradox. Let us recall that this paradox is resolved by recognizing that at least one of the clocks must experience acceleration, and that the Minkowski metric applies at all times only in the rest system of an unaccelerated clock. If in fact both clocks experience acceleration, a calculation employing the Minkowski metric cannot be done in the rest system of either clock, but must be done relative to an underlying inertial reference system. A similar issue is involved here.