Laws of physics are the same

starthaus

OK, I don't have the book, I derived mine from scratch.

Passionflower

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.

nismaratwork

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.

yuiop

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

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!

starthaus

Because kev writes a lot of incorrect things. This is why.

bcrowell

Kev might be interested in this link: http://physicsforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

JesseM

For reference, I've responded to starthaus' various confused criticisms in post #23 on the other thread.

nismaratwork

He might, but then again he might not want someone spouting off and be unable to directly monitor that, right?

JesseM: I know, I've seen this same pattern in other threads, it's kind of unfortunate. Usually it's a death-knell for the thread, but you're sure as hell not the cause.