0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When you open a new thread, you are instructed to ask a question in the title. Maybe the instructions should be extended to make an exception for this section of the forum.Policing sounds a bit aggressive. Moving them into new threads and leaving links behind would be kinder, but you (and other referees) would then have to coin new titles. Maybe you could use PMs to encourage offenders to do that on their own.
PE is a classical concept. It doesn't make sense for objects travelling at or near light speed or for objects that have no mass.
An observer perceives lower frequencies (i.e. red shift) when peering down a gravity well. You can interpret that as observer time speeding up due to its own mass rather than local time slowing down due to the remote object's proximity to the gravitating mass,
An observer perceives lower frequencies (i.e. red shift) when peering down a gravity well.
It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.
Yes - the equivalence principle, or concepts close to it, also imply that the caesium atom will be of the same frequency in each and every reference frame, and states the speed of light as constant.
**unless you state your coordinate times as occurring at these variable spatial dimensions, i.e. that the GR time shifts occur not at every h from M, but occur as per extended radius held relative to variable distance**
The 3rd time dilation does not affect the the rate of time for m,**although the acceleration that it causes does**
I'm not entirely clear how one gets an expanding universe from the SC metric. The only formal derivation I know of is the Friedmann (FD) metric, which is something entirely different: ds2 = a(t)2ds32 - c2dt2