Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

The equivalence is between different FORs. Therefore velocity is relative. Not acceleration is relative.

Well in this case a free falling accelerating reference frame cannot be an inertial reference frame as Einstein has postulated and used to develop his theory of gravity.

Equivalence, not identity. Gravity curves space-time and has effects.

Gravitation is equivalent to acceleration,

I agree that when you are within a gravitational field in space you will accelerate; but this acceleration does NOT cause time to slow down within your reference frame.

It is meaningless to talk about time slowing down in an FOR because time is relative. I think that is the source of your difference from me here. For example you talk above about measuring the age of the universe, as though there were some absolute measure of time

but that does not mean that only relative acceleration matters.

Well if you free-fall past another object and you are of the opinion that you are stationary as you must within an inertial reference frame, then you must conclude that it is the other object that is accelerating past you.

Absolute acceleration is phyically measurable (though not distinguishable from a gravitational field if GR is correct).

How do you measure it? One can measure a force on an object which is enclosed whthin another object that is accelerating. And although the enclosed object will not be able to discern whether this force is caused by a gravity field outside, this force is NOT the same as gravity within the universe. Time does not actually slow down merely because the clock suffers acceleration. It does slow down within a gravitational field owing to the fact that matter consists purely of waves and not of "particles".

Although the effect of gravity is equivalent to curved space-time (as GR says) it is not true that the effect of all acceleration is so equivalent. The accelerated spacecraft is (clearly) not an inertial FOR because objects inside it experience a force.

Thus the two cases are different in acceleration experienced by the two spaceships, and not equivalent.

I know this has been the belief for nearly 100 years by now: But it is wrong. I have given you the example of the two spaceships accelerating and decelerating symmetrically, and you just ignored it. Do you agree that the twins must, at least in this case, have the same age when they meet up?

[/quote]
If you look above at one of my early posts I do not ignore this case, and give it as example. If they accelerate & decelerate symmetrically then there is no change, as you would expect. So we agree here. It is the assymetrical acceleration that causes the difference.

You argue that assymetrical acceleration is physically equivalemnt to symmetrical acceleration. But that cannot be true, since I can distinguish the two cases easily with accelerometers!

[johanfprins]

Equivalence, not identity. Gravity curves space-time and has effects.

Before we proceed I need more clarity of what you mean by "equivalence". Are you saying that the "apparant force" experienced by a person within a vessel when the vessel accelerates by means of a power source which forms part of the vessel is "equivalent" to a gravitational field outside of the vessel?

I know that Einstein postulated this, but it is very unlikely since a vessel moving within an external gravitational field will accelerate without any apparant force on the person within the vessel. I do not think that one can equate a situation where a power source on a vessel accelerates the vessel, to a force of gravity within the vessel or outside the vessel.

Space-time becomes curved around mass since light speed slows down as it approaches a body of mass. The latter follows directly from the nature of matter waves, light waves and their interactions through entanglement. A matter-wave is a stationary light wave within an inertial reference frame.

[johanfprins]

An extract from a non-paranormal manuscript: 1/(gamma)=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

4. Length-contraction

Consider again a passing spaceship with a stationary length L(0) as measured within its own inertial reference-frame K(/): According to an all-knowing being within the reference-frame K, the time within K(/) in the tail of the passing spaceship is the same as the the time within K(/) in the nose of the spaceship. It, however, means that an observer within K can never see or measure at which positions the nose and the tail are at a single instant in time on any clock which is stationary at any position within K. And this brings us to the most remarkable blunder that Einstein has made more than 100 years ago, and which is still being taught in physics text books as being correct.

After Einstein derived the Lorentz-transformation in terms of his postulates on which the Special Theory of Relativity is based, he immediately went ahead and “used” the Lorentz-transformation (Eqs. 6) to derive the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction (Eq. 1). In order to do so, he incorrectly assumed that the front-end (nose) and the back-end (tail) of a passing object with length L(0) can be simultaneously present within K at a single instant in time on the clocks within K.

As incredible as it may sound, this means that just after Einstein had proved in 1905 that two spatially separated events, which occur simultaneously within a passing inertial reference-frame K(/), can never be simultaneous within the inertial reference-frame K relative to which K(/) is moving with a speed v, he used the Lorentz-transformation to map the nose-coordinates and the tail-coordinates within K(/) as if they have simultaneous positions within the reference-frame K. He did this in order to derive a length L(d) within the inertial reference-frame K which is the same as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction (see Eq. 5): And this is still being done in text books to this day.

But, within the reference-frame K(/) of the spaceship, passing by with a speed v, the nose and tail are at any instant in time, on any clock travelling with the spaceship, simultaneously a distance L(0) away from each other. Every tick of two clocks (one in the nose and the other in the tail of the spaceship) defines “two events” which occur all the time simultaneously; no matter how small the time-interval between two consecutive ticks is. Only for this reason can the stationary length L(0) be known at a single instant in time on the clocks within the inertial reference-frame K(/). But this is not the case for the outside observer in reference-frame K.

When applying the Lorentz-transformation, one finds that the transformed length of the spaceship actually increases within the reference-frame K of the outside observer. In fact, the correct transformed length L(e) within the inertial reference-frame of the observer when the spaceship moves past with a speed v can be derived from Eq. 6a (as also confirmed by Eq. 11a) and is found to be:
L(e)=(gamma)*L(0) (13)

Thus, if the speed of the spaceship approaches the speed of light relative to the inertial reference-frame of the outside observer, L(e) will become very long indeed: However, the apparent time-difference (delta)T, between being able to observe the tail and then the nose of the spaceship, will also be very large. By using Eq. 6c, it is derived to be:

(delta)T=(gamma)*(v/c^2)*L(0) (14)

What does this imply? It can only imply what it is saying: That owing to the relative motion of the spaceship having a stationary length L(0) within K(/), an entity with a longer length L(e) is passing by within K, but this length cannot be seen at the same instant in time within K, since one can only observe different positions along the length of this passing object at different instances in time on any and all clocks which are stationary at any position within K.

But one can stubbornly argue that, even though the outside observer cannot see the front- and rear-ends of the spaceship simultaneously, the spaceship must surely still have, at any instant in time, a unique length L(u) within the inertial reference-frame K of the outside observer. If one could at any instant in time, stop time, so that all movement halts, the front-end and rear-end of the spaceship must be found at two different space-positions within K. But how can the outside observer measure such a length if he/she cannot observe the nose and tail simultaneously (while there is relative motion) and cannot stop time?

There is only one way to do this, and that is to measure the time interval (delta)t that it takes the object to pass the observer: i.e. in the case of the spaceship, the outside observer must have a stopwatch which he/she starts as soon as the nose passes him, and then stops as soon as the tail passes him. The length L(u) must then be equal to:

L(u)=v*(delta)t (15)

But we are considering two identical spaceships, each of length L(0), as measured within their respective inertial reference-frames K(/) and K, which are passing each other with a relative speed v: As soon as the noses of the two spaceships reach each other, the two captains start their respective stopwatches, thus synchronizing them, and then stop their stopwatches as soon as the tail of the other spaceship passes the nose of his/her space-ship.

Now, if the captains measured time intervals (delta)t and (delta)t(/) respectively, they will calculate that the lengths of each other’s spaceship are L(u)=v*(delta)t and L(/u)=v*(delta)t(/), respectively: But owing to the symmetry involved, and the fact that the two spaceships are stationary within equivalent inertial reference-frames, one must surely have that L(u)=L(/u): i.e. there is no real change in length within either K/ or K. Furthermore, this demands that:

(delta)t=(delta)t(/) (16)

The clocks of the two captains must keep time at exactly the same rate.

Added on the 17th October: It should be noted that the same argument is valid when the two spaceships accelerate relative to each other no matter which one of the spaceships is being accelerated by its engines.

[D Tibbets]

johanfprins, I know I am arguing out of my league, but some clarifications.
I never said quarks poured out of the Big Bang singularity. I said (or tried to say) that the earliest moments after the big bang/ end of inflation all was an extremely hot ball of energy, as it expanded and cooled, matter started condensing out of this pure energy precursor. , first quarks and electrons, then the quarks condensed into protons and neutrons. As the cooling continued the disassociated protons and neutrons started combining making the heavier hydrogen isotopes, smaller amounts of helium, etc. The continued cooling and density decrease ended this nucleosynthesis. Finally, after much more time the plasma cooled enough for recombination to occur (actually that is misleading as it was not a recombination but the first combination). This neutral gas is much less transparent to radio waves and thus allowed the cosmic background radiation to be eventually witnessed by us.

The variations in the temperature at different scales of the CBR does indeed make very impressive amounts of information available. It is a very interesting read all by itself. Perhaps I should revisit it as I have forgotten most.

I could see the CBR radiation giving some information about the constraints on the amount and distribution of dark matter, but calling it dark matter seems a stretch, as by definition dark mater emits no detectable electromagnetic radiation.

You say the electron absorbs the photon in the BEC, but then you imply that the photon retains it's identity, despite being absorbed and increasing the KE of the electron. My understanding is that the photon is destroyed/ ceases to exist as a real particle (wave packet). The information is preserved, but not the photon itself. When the electron returns to it's lower energy state a new photon carrying the information is released. Intermediate virtual photons may involved, but again this is not the same as saying the first real photon is preserved. A cloned twin is released.

Finally, the Great Attractor is a local effect. It is a very big galaxy super cluster located over 100,000 light years away from us. It's dominate gravitational influence only extends a few hundred thousand light years, while the observable universe is over 10 billion light years wide, or is it over 10 billion ly radius from us. I'm uncertain. In any case the Great Attractor is a very small portion of the mass (light and dark matter) in the Universe.. In no way could it be considered the center of the Universe. Given enough time it will concentrate a large number of galaxies into a small volume, but again this will involve only a tiny relative amount of the matter of the Universe and stay dominate over the expansion of the universe (based on pre Dark Energy ideas I think). Note that the Great Attractor knowledge predates the now popular Dark Energy concept derived from Supernova data. The Great attractor will still accumulate a lot of galaxies, but fewer, and they will only be temporarily bound by it. Eventually the accelerating expansion of the Universe will overcome this local density perturbation.

Dan Tibbets

[tomclarke]

Equivalence, not identity. Gravity curves space-time and has effects.

Before we proceed I need more clarity of what you mean by "equivalence". Are you saying that the "apparant force" experienced by a person within a vessel when the vessel accelerates by means of a power source which forms part of the vessel is "equivalent" to a gravitational field outside of the vessel?

No. Acceleration is measurably different from an inertial FOR.

So the cases we consider above are distinguished by the fact that acceleration happens, and it changes the FOR of the accelerated object.

I know that Einstein postulated this, but it is very unlikely since a vessel moving within an external gravitational field will accelerate without any apparant force on the person within the vessel. I do not think that one can equate a situation where a power source on a vessel accelerates the vessel, to a force of gravity within the vessel or outside the vessel.

Space-time becomes curved around mass since light speed slows down as it approaches a body of mass. The latter follows directly from the nature of matter waves, light waves and their interactions through entanglement. A matter-wave is a stationary light wave within an inertial reference frame.

I'm not sure about your alternate theory - it would need a much longer description.

perhaps we can make progress as follows:
(1) does it make experimentally verifiable predictions different from GR
(2) is it correct (assuming it does)?

[johanfprins]

johanfprins, I know I am arguing out of my league, but some clarifications.
I never said quarks poured out of the Big Bang singularity. I said (or tried to say) that the earliest moments after the big bang/ end of inflation all was an extremely hot ball of energy,

How do you define "hot" in this case? To measure temperature you need entities of matter moving around with kinetic energy. Thus to bring in the term "hot" before matter has formed is a contradiction in terms.

as it expanded and cooled, matter started condensing out of this pure energy precursor.

It expanded and the amount of energy diluted but to describe this energy precursor as "hot" and therefore as cooling before separate entities of matter has formed, is giving it a property it just cannot have

, first quarks

There is not any experimental proof that individual quarks can exist. They are probably just as untrealistic as the Higgs boson

and electrons, then the quarks condensed into protons and neutrons.

I am more inclined to agree with Gamow that the first particles must have been neutral neutrons which then decayed into protons, electrons and neutrinos. They only then became hot since they found themselves surrounded by black-body radiation.

As the cooling continued the disassociated protons and neutrons started combining making the heavier hydrogen isotopes, smaller amounts of helium, etc. The continued cooling and density decrease ended this nucleosynthesis. Finally, after much more time the plasma cooled enough for recombination to occur (actually that is misleading as it was not a recombination but the first combination). This neutral gas is much less transparent to radio waves and thus allowed the cosmic background radiation to be eventually witnessed by us.

After the neutrons have formed and decayed, and after these decay products have been heated by the background radiation, this scenario seems correct and I have never disagreed with this: So why do you raise this as if I have?

The variations in the temperature at different scales of the CBR does indeed make very impressive amounts of information available. It is a very interesting read all by itself. Perhaps I should revisit it as I have forgotten most.

I have never disagreed with this either: So why do you raise this as if I have?

I could see the CBR radiation giving some information about the constraints on the amount and distribution of dark matter, but calling it dark matter

I did not outright call it dark matter. All I pointed out is that the energy of a standing light wave is mass energy and that it would be interesting to add the total energy of the CBR and compare it with the estimated energy of dark matter.

seems a stretch, as by definition dark mater emits no detectable electromagnetic radiation.

A standing light wave is already electromagnetic radiation.

You say the electron absorbs the photon in the BEC, but then you imply that the photon retains it's identity, despite being absorbed and increasing the KE of the electron. ,

When the photon is absorbed it increases the mass energy of the electron wave. The electron only gains kinetic energy, when the increase in mass energy causes the electron to have more energy than its rest mass energy. I did not imply that the photon retains its identityl!

My understanding is that the photon is destroyed/ ceases to exist as a real particle (wave packet).

Correct! It looses its separate identity when it entangles with the electron wave.

The information is preserved, but not the photon itself.

Let me quote John Bell on this: "Whose information?"

When the electron returns to it's lower energy state a new photon carrying the information is released.

Again: Whose information?

Intermediate virtual photons may involved,

Quantum fluctuations are involved or else the excited electron wave will never decay. One can gain this information from the widths of the spectal lines

but again this is not the same as saying the first real photon is preserved.

I have no stated this anywhere: Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Finally, the Great Attractor is a local effect.

Yes it is; but it would not have been observed if the CBR radiation did not act as a stationary reference frame in this case.

In no way could it be considered the center of the Universe.

I have NEVER stated this: Why do you keep on putting words in my mouth?

Note that the Great Attractor knowledge predates the now popular Dark Energy concept derived from Supernova data.

What makes you think that I do not know this? Stop being so patronising!

[johanfprins]

Equivalence, not identity. Gravity curves space-time and has effects.

Before we proceed I need more clarity of what you mean by "equivalence". Are you saying that the "apparant force" experienced by a person within a vessel when the vessel accelerates by means of a power source which forms part of the vessel is "equivalent" to a gravitational field outside of the vessel?

No. Acceleration is measurably different from an inertial FOR.

Not if the spaceship is accelerating owing to a free fall within a gravity field. One can then not measure any acceleration within the spaceship. Is this not the reason why Einstein classified a free-falling, accelerating reference frame as also being an inertial reference frame?

So the cases we consider above are distinguished by the fact that acceleration happens, and it changes the FOR of the accelerated object.

OK, if you accelerate because of an engine driving the vessel (you are in), you will experience a force; which you will, however, not experience when you accelerate owing to free falling or when moving with a constant speed.

What I am claiming is that any relative motion (constant speed or acceleration) does not cause a clock within one of the reference frames to keep different time from an identical clock within the other reference frame. It is only when you transform the space and time coordinates by using the Lorentz transformation that an observer will conclude that the other clock within the other reference frame is going slower: But this is not actually occurring within the other reference frame at all. Within their respective reference frames the clocks are actually keeping time at the same exact rate. I have explained this in the post I made yesterday: See also footnote in bold that I have added today.

I'm not sure about your alternate theory - it would need a much longer description.

When it comes to Einstein’s model for gravity, I accept the postulate on which Einstein based this theory: i.e. that a gravity field is caused by curved space time; and therefore curvilinear coordinates must be used. What I, however, maintain is that the arguments based on Special Relativity that Einstein used to get to this seemingly correct postulate, are flawed. Rods to not actually contract and time-intervals do not actually dilate within two different reference frames moving or accelerating relative to each other.

Time does slow down within a gravity field since the speed of light slows down within such a field: The larger the field the slower the speed of light and the slower the time. The space-time curvature that causes this, results from the fact that matter consists solely of waves: NO PARTICLES. The model I am working on is that a stationary electron wave is in essence a mini black hole with a gravitational field around it (the so-called “tunnelling tails”). When it absorbs a light wave (photon) the light energy becomes mass and gravitational energy. If this is correct, then it means that Einstein’s equations must be unified with a modified Schroedinger equation: The latter equation must not use the rest mass of an electron as input, but give the rest mass as the solution for a solitary electron in space. This means that Einstein’s equations which model macro-gravity should dovetail with such a modified Schroedinger equation. This might also require some tweaking of Einstein’s, equations for gravity.

perhaps we can make progress as follows:
(1) does it make experimentally verifiable predictions different from GR
(2) is it correct (assuming it does)?

When I have more time to work on this model instead of having to defend my reputation on the internet, I should be able to answer these questions. I, however expect that Einstein’s equations are essentially correct and what has to be done is to make Schroedinger’s equation, compatible with Einstein’s equations. Note, in this scenario Dirac’s relativistic equation for the electron plays no role since it is based on the assumption that a solitary electron is a “particle”.

[tomclarke]

I think we will not agree, because I do not know, physically, what your statement "clocks do not actually go slower" means.

In the twins paradox examples, consider the twin whose spaceship accelerates to high relative velocity stays, at this for a while, accelerates to high relative velocity in opposite direction, stays at this for a while, and decelerates back to his/her single FOR sibling.

The multiple FOR twin's clock will read a smaller time elapsed than the single FOR twin when they are compared at end.

I think you are saying this is not true.

You have given a theoretical justification, ie that SR here is inconsistent, which I have disagreed with, and shown you why there is no "paradox". Only the "stationary" twin stays in a single FOR throughout the period. the change in FOR of the other twin causes the clock difference.

Also, I have heard that experiments of this form have been done verifying SR.

If your argument were correct it would be relatively easy to prove experimentally.

In fact GPS satellites will provide this sort of test:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

[Skipjack]

In the twins paradox examples, consider the twin whose spaceship accelerates to high relative velocity stays, at this for a while, accelerates to high relative velocity in opposite direction, stays at this for a while, and decelerates back to his/her single FOR sibling.

The twins paradox as often quoted is bs. It is only relevant in certain constellations of reference frames. I do totally understand what Johan is talking about.

[johanfprins]

I think we will not agree, because I do not know, physically, what your statement "clocks do not actually go slower" means.

This means that you do not understand what Einstein meant when he wrote that "moving clocks go slower". I think this is a very clear statement with which I do not agree since a moving clock does not go slower within the inertial reference frame within which it is stationary, even when this reference frame moves relative to another inertial reference frame.

In the twins paradox examples, consider the twin whose spaceship accelerates to high relative velocity stays, at this for a while, accelerates to high relative velocity in opposite direction, stays at this for a while, and decelerates back to his/her single FOR sibling. The multiple FOR twin's clock will read a smaller time elapsed than the single FOR twin when they are compared at end..

There will not be any difference in their ages when they come together again; no matter which one accelerated or not.

I think you are saying this is not true.

That is correct.

You have given a theoretical justification, ie that SR here is inconsistent, which I have disagreed with, and shown you why there is no "paradox". Only the "stationary" twin stays in a single FOR throughout the period.

There is no such thing as only one "stationary twin": Both twins are stationary within their respective reference frames; as had already been pointed out by Galileo more than 400 years ago.

the change in FOR of the other twin causes the clock difference.

Not possible.

Also, I have heard that experiments of this form have been done verifying SR.

I know of no convincing experiments except the flawed experiment when atomic clocks were flown in different directions around the earth.

If your argument were correct it would be relatively easy to prove experimentally.

It can only be proved within a region of space where the force of gravity is totally zero. Not near a body with mass like the earth.

In fact GPS satellites will provide this sort of test:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

No this does not prove that the clocks on the GPS satellites are actually running slower than a similar clock on earth, but that the Lorentz-transformed time rate relative to earth of the actual time rate on the satellite, is slower than the actual time rate on the satellite: And since it is this transformed time rate that is used to calculate positions on earth, the clocks on the GPS satellites have to be adjusted. The fact that the Lorentz-transformed time rate, of the actual time rate on the satellite, is slower than the actual time rate on the satellite, does not mean that the time rate within the satellite is actually slower than the time rate of a similar clock on earth. To repeat, since the Lorentz-transformed time rate relative to earth must be used to calculate positions on earth, this does not mean that this slower transformed time rate is also actually occurring within the reference frame of the satellite.

[johanfprins]

The twins paradox as often quoted is bs. It is only relevant in certain constellations of reference frames. I do totally understand what Johan is talking about.

Thanks for the support!

I just cannot understand how people can interpret transformed coordinates from one reference frame into another to be the same as within the reference frame from which they have been transformed. If this were possible, one would not have required a coordinate transformation in the first instance.

[DeltaV]

I, however expect that Einstein’s equations are essentially correct and what has to be done is to make Schroedinger’s equation, compatible with Einstein’s equations.

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploa ... entury.pdf

On Mass
The quaternion-spinor factorization in general relativity leads to the formal expression of the quantum mechanical equations. This, in turn, leads to an explicit relation between the masses of elementary matter and the features of the curved spacetime.

Without going into the mathematical details here, the derivation revealing this connection of inertial mass to spacetime is as follows: One starts with the most primitive expression where the inertial mass appears in the physics of elementary matter. This is the quantum mechanical equations in special relativity, with the Majorana form of two coupled two-component spinor equations in the Euclidean spacetime. On the left side of one of these spinor equations is a quaternion operator (defined in terms of the Pauli matrices as the basis elements of the quaternion) acting on one type of spinor. On the right hand side of this equation is the second type of spinor that is a reflection of the first, multiplied by the mass parameter m. The second spinor equation is a reflection of the first.[18] (The combination of these two (two-component) spinor equations yields the (four-component) Dirac bispinor equation that in turn restores reflection symmetry. The latter, in turn, in the nonrelativistic limit, gives back the Schrödinger wave equation.)...

[johanfprins]

I, however expect that Einstein’s equations are essentially correct and what has to be done is to make Schroedinger’s equation, compatible with Einstein’s equations.

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploa ... entury.pdf

On Mass
The quaternion-spinor factorization in general relativity leads to the formal expression of the quantum mechanical equations. This, in turn, leads to an explicit relation between the masses of elementary matter and the features of the curved spacetime.

Without going into the mathematical details here, the derivation revealing this connection of inertial mass to spacetime is as follows: One starts with the most primitive expression where the inertial mass appears in the physics of elementary matter. This is the quantum mechanical equations in special relativity, with the Majorana form of two coupled two-component spinor equations in the Euclidean spacetime. On the left side of one of these spinor equations is a quaternion operator (defined in terms of the Pauli matrices as the basis elements of the quaternion) acting on one type of spinor. On the right hand side of this equation is the second type of spinor that is a reflection of the first, multiplied by the mass parameter m. The second spinor equation is a reflection of the first.[18] (The combination of these two (two-component) spinor equations yields the (four-component) Dirac bispinor equation that in turn restores reflection symmetry. The latter, in turn, in the nonrelativistic limit, gives back the Schrödinger wave equation.)...

I am in total agreement with the conclusions reached by Mendel Sachs; but do not at present have the time to study his quaternion approach: Neither do I have the money to buy the relevant book. Hopefully next year I will be in a better position.

It is possible to use the wrong mathematics and to then reach the correct conclusion. Aharanov and Bohm did exactly this when they predicted that a double-slit electron-diffraction pattern will be shifted by a magntic field within a thin solenoid between the slits.

I suspect that the situation is far less complex than the analysis of Mendel Sachs indicates: For example, "spinor factorization" is most probably not modelling real physics. I suspect that, except for using the rest mass of the electron as input, Schroedinger's equation might already be commensurate with special relativity and with gravitation. The spin relates to the magnetic component of the electric-energy of the matter-wave, which, as Antoon Lorentz suspected, is the mass of the electron.

[Teemu]

This means that you do not understand what Einstein meant when he wrote that "moving clocks go slower". I think this is a very clear statement with which I do not agree since a moving clock does not go slower within the inertial reference frame within which it is stationary, even when this reference frame moves relative to another inertial reference frame.

Could you point out where Einstein claimed this, it could be either bad translation or bad popularization of his theory. Of course the clock doesn't slow down relative to a reference frame where it is stationary, there is a reason why it is called theory of relativity, not "time slowing down due to movement" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
"In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation."

In reference frame where the clock is stationary there is no movement, thus no time dilation, based on that the special theory of relativity doesn't seem to claim that "moving clocks go slower".

[mvanwink5]

So, here is the experiment. A large number of quantum entangled particles are created and separated so that two rocket ships contain these entangled particles. Each rocket ship will have identical synchronized clocks. Testing of one entangled particle on one ship will cause its entangled paired particle on the other ship to become untangled and thereby the remote particle test performance will be known.

Tie the test performance on these entangled particles to one rocket ship's clock, say, every hour.

Now, accelerate one rocket ship to 90% of light speed relative to the other rocket ship.

Will both ships show the particle untangling taking place at the same time?

I hope I was clear in outlining the experiment.
Best regards