0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wait a tick!
And again, I must insist that we focus this discussion on the topic at hand. If you want to debate concepts like the standard second, you (timey) should open another thread. Send me a PM if you want my input. I'm happy to oblige. I find these kinds of discussions instructive (to myself) because it forces me to formulate my thoughts in non-technical terms. I think it was Einstein who said something like, "if you can't explain it in everyday terms, you don't understand it yourself."
Back to business though. Does it strike anyone as odd that there is no equivalent to the Lorentz transform for the SC metric?
Going back to moving mass across differing gravity potentials with SR.When SR makes its length contraction calculations we are talking about 0.806c (might have got that figure wrong but can't be arsed to look it up) causing a 50% length contraction.But if the length of second in a reference frame is differing from a standard second, then the percentage of the speed of light (edit: that the mass is travelling at) will not be 0.806c in that reference frame, and the length contraction will not be 50%!
I don't understand your obsession with the "standard" second. In the absence of gravity, there is no preferred reference frame. The choice is entirely arbitrary and has no impact on the physics.
I am certain that our level of understanding has a lot of room for growth. There are a lot of known unknowns, but almost surely more unknown unknowns.