Blog Entries: 9

## Laws of physics are the same

 Quote by Passionflower "General Relativity An Introduction For Physicists" Hobson, Efstathious, Lasenby (Cambridge 2006) Exercise 7.7
OK, I don't have the book, I derived mine from scratch.
 Reasoning why we have the 3/2R ratio would be very interesting. I wonder if we can relate it to the fact that the photon sphere has the same ratio with respect to the Schwarzschild radius. Perhaps there is some merit in considering that a stationary observer hovering just above the event horizon has the maximum (coordinate) time dilation due to gravitational time dilation and zero 'SR time dilation' and an observer in a circular orbit slightly outside the photon sphere has the maximum (coordinate and proper) velocity approaching c which implies the maximum 'SR time dilation'. These 'maximums' are 3/2 away from each other.

 Quote by Passionflower A scientific formula is right or wrong there is no middle way. I certainly would appreciate it if my formulas or calculations were found wrong, that's the way to learn, you apply, make mistakes, and hopefully someone else takes the trouble of telling you you are right or wrong.
Yeah, but not by dragging the thread off-topic into yet another personal pissing match. Do you really think that this is meaningful for the OP, and his question? It's fine to debate, but there is a place for that, and simply blowing out any given thread isn't that place. It's not as if this is the first, or even fifth time either, it's a ****ing pattern that is getting OLD.

Why are the laws of physics the same for all observers, is no longer in the discussion is it? The bottom line, that these are postulates which form the basis for the theory, and not the other way around, is being lost in mathematical minutiae.

Here's an edit, and idea: How about Starthaus and Kev (and you if you like) start a thread where, every time this same old story emerges, you can debate who's right, and how, and why? You'd already have pages of the stuff, and it's a practical way to not drag a given thread into a corner to die quietly.

Blog Entries: 6
 Quote by nismaratwork Here's an edit, and idea: How about Starthaus and Kev (and you if you like) start a thread where, every time this same old story emerges, you can debate who's right, and how, and why? You'd already have pages of the stuff, and it's a practical way to not drag a given thread into a corner to die quietly.
Hi nismaratwork,

when I entered the thread, it appeared to be about clock rates in a gravitational field, because that was what the last half dozen posts was about and I was also responding to comments made about me when I wasn't even in this thread! However, I agree with you that the issues are getting off topic so my apologies for any inconvenience caused.

I have started a new thread for the issues raised by Starthaus/Passionflower/JesseM/myself here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...24#post2855224

 Quote by kev Hi nismaratwork, when I entered the thread, it appeared to be about clock rates in a gravitational field, because that was what the last half dozen posts was about and I was also responding to comments made about me when I wasn't even in this thread! However, I agree with you that the issues are getting off topic so my apologies for any inconvenience caused. I have started a new thread for the issues raised by Starthaus/Passionflower/JesseM/myself here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...24#post2855224
I'm familiar with Starthaus' penchant for calling you out at fairly regular intervals (although I don't know why), and I don't blame you for responding. I think this avenue you're taking now is the best idea. Thanks!

Blog Entries: 9
 Quote by nismaratwork I'm familiar with Starthaus' penchant for calling you out at fairly regular intervals (although I don't know why),
Because kev writes a lot of incorrect things. This is why.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by nismaratwork I'm familiar with Starthaus' penchant for calling you out at fairly regular intervals (although I don't know why), and I don't blame you for responding. I think this avenue you're taking now is the best idea. Thanks!
Kev might be interested in this link: http://physicsforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Recognitions:
 Quote by starthaus Look, I am not going to engage in this Q&A game with you again. I know GR quite well and it takes one line of calculations to show that $$\frac{d\tau}{dt}<1$$ for any r. I looked, pervect is using an incorrect metric, his formula for $$g_{tt}$$ is incorrect. If you want, I can do the correct one-line calculation. I looked. kev's calculation has two mistakes: 1. He uses the wrong metric , i.e. wrong $$g_{tt}$$ 2. even worse, he does not calculate the time dilation for orbital motion As I suspected, it is alll wrong. That thread dealt with yet different errors in calculating time dilation for radial (not orbital) motion. No point in bringing into play, do you realize kev's errors in calculating time dilation for orbital motion?