0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
We measure a locally invariant 'clock', meaning it keeping a constant time, its oscillations the same in all uniform motion, no matter your speed. And when you measure other frames of reference you do it against that clock, no other. And defined from that view it is the 'universe' that change, not you. Your ruler and clock becoming something of 'local constants', defining all experiments, together with 'c'.=And your lifespan use that local 'constant' clock too.
... although the far observer defines your clock to go slow, can I really assume a equivalence in where his then must go faster, as defined from my local clock (at the event horizon)? Logic and the equivalence principle seems to demand it though.
So, will you be weightless
... I don't think you can define a macroscopic object as being in a super position, as a piece of wood.
And no, not to me. It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home.
You want the aging to be a result of the equivalence principle right?
I define all clocks differing from mine as 'time dilated'. Did you read me otherwise?
... this one? It's interesting and one can flip to the next page using " [Top] [Intro] [Prev] [Next] " above and under, in the window.The Twin Paradox: The Equivalence Principle Analysis.
And here's a guy I'm enjoying immensely Spacetime and the Relativity of Simultaneity.
What I can agree on is that acceleration/deceleration will present more of that 'compared aging', as defined from a inertial observer, dlorde What I can't agree on, is if one would define it to be only accelerations/decelerations creating it....You need to see from where I define it. I assume a 'clock' as a local constant, equivalent to splitting 'c' in even chunks of 'time'.
One more thing dlorde, it's not a theory. At most it's assumptions I make.
And I will assume that you jumped into this thread, not bothering to read where from I got to those ideas
... if now the universe is 'closed' somehow? You might be able to, making me foresee a lot of interesting arguments, and heated discussions
Then ignore them