Recent content by Lluis Olle

That will not give the correct numbers, because in the scenario the test particle do fall radially, but the light beam does not, and is "launched" tangentially.

The point is: none. I just set up an scenario, derive the required Geodesic equations using the Schwarzschild metric, stating at the beginning of the thread that "...the test will be conducted in Earth, simplifying and considering the Schwarzschild metric solution to the Einstein Field...

Don't know what this "vertical coordinate" is ¿?. I'm working with the Schwarzschild coordinates. The light pulse, moving from side to side will not maintain a constant radial coordinate, no matter what the "equivalence principle" says. Not even a mathematical straight line will do so, ...is...

Sure enough... For the test particle, the initial guess for the findroot() function is just the Newtonian approximation. d=pow(tend,2)*G*M/(2*pow(r0,2)) # initial guess [rend_m] = findroot([lambda r: quad(fmp_dt_dr,[r0-1e-51,r])-tend],(r0-d)) Newton...

I attach an extremely exaggerated figure, to better understand the scenario. The laser is fixed at point A, at the left side of the elevator. The test particle is located at point B. Both laser origin and test particle are at the same radial coordinate r0. For reasons given in the thread, the...

As personal curiosity, I want to calculate which is the difference in "travelled height" between a photon that goes across the width of an elevator - which is more or less 2[m] in my country - and a tiny mass particle that free-falls starting at the same "height" as the photon origin, and is...

I agree with that. There's an extended misconception about the change in speed being somehow due to the continually absorption and re-emission of the photons... and as such process "takes a finite time", that's the reason for the slowdown. Absorption and re-emission of photons is a random...

Well, "my accelerometer" will look different away from the massive object, than when I'm near to the massive object of the OP. Seems that I can measure that something is happening.

Because you can measure something, which is different to nothing.

Ok, but what if I have a "doppler accelerometer" (do this thing exist?), and I measure acceleration by the rate of change of the doppler shift from a distant star?

As relativistic speeds don't add as you expect by your daily experience, neither acceleration does to the speed... you can be accelerating forever, and you will not exceed the speed c for any observer. Acceleration acts hyperbolically and not parabolically, so to speak.

I don't know, is just this guy that at least at the beginnings thought than has something to do with it.

I didn't look into any particular video to talk about the Equivalence Principles, but just thought (guessed, supposed....) that the concept could fit into the naive question "where does the energy of gravity come from...." question in a Relativity Forum, mentioning a video that the IA of Google...

The concept of "the energy of gravity" is a little bit ambiguous, but don't tell me is that is not mass related!

The referenced video is in Spanish. Talks about the retroreflectors left in the Moon, and how they where used to check for the strong equivalence in GR.