
#361
Dec1712, 11:07 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

Take for example Higgs boson. Okay there is another possibility when different viewpoints can't be supported at the same time. We can take one viewpoint as a working hypothesis and go with it for some time. 



#362
Dec1712, 11:37 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#363
Dec1812, 09:06 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,376





#364
Dec1812, 01:08 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#365
Dec1812, 01:11 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#366
Dec1812, 04:59 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#367
Dec1812, 06:32 PM

P: 1,162

Could you explain your statement above regarding time on the static clock at infinity?? DO you think that the geometry that the falling clock is passing through has no effect on the periodicity of this clock?? That it would not be red shifted relative to the distant clo9ck equivalent to a proximate static clock? That the integrated proper times of the relative clocks would not be related by the metric? That dt=d[itex]\tau[/itex]/(12M/r)^{1/2}(1v^{2}/c^{2} would not apply??? I was under the impression that it was an implicit assumption of valid coordinate systems that relative velocity was symmetric and reciprocal. That the velocity of the faller relative to the distant observer is the same as the velocity of the distant observer relative to the faller. Does this not hold in Sc coordinates??? 



#368
Dec1812, 06:49 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#369
Dec1812, 07:11 PM

P: 1,162

EG. The Born rigidity question rears its head. Differential acceleration and velocities at separated locations etc. But ignoring these considerations for a moment:In principle measurements of static clocks at two heights could be accomplished by falling observers without necessity of signal exchange between the static clocks. Comparing elapsed times on two separated clocks for extended intervals which is what is required to measure rate which is not instantaneously determinable. So it would seem that to the extent that observations from an infalling frame aren't too ambiguous to be meaningful they support the validity of gravitational dilation as an independent local effect of mass. Regarding the EP ,,,I certainly consider it one of the most brilliant and productive abstract bootstraps in scientific history. And the result, the relativity of time flow due to gravity is beyond question at this point. That being said I think that it is somewhat abused in certain cases and that there are limits to its validity as an analogy . SO the difference in local rates can be empirically demonstrated simply by relocation without need of a coordinate system beyond identical uniform rate parameterization. This is a physical fact or as close to a fact as any of our physics gets so what does it really mean to say that it is "as if" the clocks were actually moving radially upward under impulse and so the dilation isn't really due to gravity but is from relative motion as you are suggesting here????? 



#370
Dec1812, 07:13 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#371
Dec1812, 07:22 PM

P: 1,162

I trust you are not suggesting that surrounding such a BH that an extended bar would not be subjected to stresses from the difference in g at the top and bottom??? 



#372
Dec1812, 07:26 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#373
Dec1812, 07:35 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#374
Dec1812, 08:00 PM

P: 1,162

Quote by Austin0
Quote by Austin0 On the other hand, there is , in Pervect's stated conditions, absolutely no foundation or justification for an inference or assertion that Achilles' clock does not run at the same rate as Zeno's. So your statements "Neither correspond to the proper time on the falling/Achilles' clock" and " For Zeno time, the proper time on Achilles' clock between Zeno t=1 and t=2 is indeed smaller than between Zeno t=0 and t=1" are both simply unwarranted assertions without validity. Simply entering the desired conclusion as an assumption Explicitly as Zeno time goes to infinity so does Achilles' Quote by Austin0 SO I will again state my opinion that the analogy doesn't really apply. Zeno time does not demonstrate a small finite time on Achilles clock. Do you still disagree?? 



#375
Dec1812, 08:13 PM

P: 1,162

Are you suggesting that with a system accelerating under thrust we just disregard Born rigidity and acceleration if the system is smaller than the Empire State building??? Joke. ;) 



#376
Dec1812, 08:18 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858





#377
Dec1812, 08:25 PM

Mentor
P: 16,466





#378
Dec1812, 11:32 PM

P: 97

Gravity and acceleration may give the same answers, but if there is a heavy mass present, then gravity wins over acceleration.as an explanation  or at least as part of the explanation where both are involved. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
In binary can we have a value with "deci" "centi" "mili" or more lower valued prefix?  Computers  14  
1D Kinematics Problem/Free Fall. "A helicopter carrying Dr. Evil..."  Introductory Physics Homework  1  
Nature of "Real" Applications Quantum Mechanics  Quantum Physics  2  
Finding "a" and "b" in an infinite series limit comparison test  Calculus & Beyond Homework  10  
The distancedependent nature behind lorentz "timetransformation"...  Special & General Relativity  5 