Recent content by PeterDonis

That's correct. It also can't change the underlying global topological manifold--for example, it can't make a flat planar plate into a 2-sphere. It's obvious: distorting the lengths of rulers means changing the metric, but the metric is a tensor on an underlying topological manifold. It makes...

Yes. No. An "eternal" black hole, which truly is vacuum everywhere, is not a physically realistic solution; it's an idealized piece of math. The "mass" of the hole is just a parameter in the math--a constant that shows up in the metric. It is not "located" anywhere in particular, certainly not...

After moderator review, the thread will remain closed. Thanks to all who participated.

One other note, on isotropy: But it can be any direction; that's the point. Your method has to work the same no matter what direction you decide to move the second clock. If that's not clear to you, imagine that you don't get to pick the direction: someone else tells you in which direction to...

Thread closed for moderation.

You might not think so, but you're wrong. See my response to @FactChecker in post #5 just now. I strongly, strongly suggest that you reconsider your entire position. We have had umpteen PF threads on this topic in the past, and all of them have ended up one of two ways--either the OP...

His attempt to get around that is to start both clocks in the same place, set them to the same time, then move one away and adjust its time based on calculating its time dilation relative to the first clock. What he doesn't appear to realize is that that very calculation does imply a particular...

Then you're not measuring the one-way speed of light. You're just reproducing your clock synchronization convention. Your process for moving one clock away once the two are set to the same time in the same place doesn't get rid of a clock synchronization convention; you're implicitly assuming...

Thread closed for moderation.

This is not correct.

Whatever they tell you is irrelevant to what you say you are trying to calculate. I showed you in post #40 how the non-Euclideanness affects what you say you are trying to calculate. It has nothing whatever to do with optical effects. And this is wrong. It amounts to saying that radial spatial...

The math I showed you in post #40 is the kind of math I was looking for from you. I strongly suggest that you read that post very carefully.

Please give a reference for this very surprising claim. And please read the below from my previous post again--and again and again until it sinks in. I don't think you've grasped the crucial point.

No, it's not. The claim you are making involves more than that. The "non-Euclidean space" does not have the effects you appear to think it has. See further comments below. I already told you that in post #10. As I have already reiterated to you once. No. @Ibix explained to you why quite a few...

The bobs are pointing radially inward by construction. That is what "directly down" would normally be taken to mean. But the bobs still converge; their bottom ends are slightly closer together, in terms of tangential proper distance, than their top ends. @Ibix explained to you why. So if by...