[Space Flow]

I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.

Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.

[timey]

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.

I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

I understand that general relativity concerns itself with gravitational acceleration and position in the gravitational field.

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

[alancalverd]

I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation! SR deals with constant velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity. An object is either moving with constant velocity or it is accelerating.

[timey]

I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation! SR deals with constant velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity. An object is either moving with constant velocity or it is accelerating.

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

P.S.  the translation was quite clearly set out in posts 185, 187, and 196, but lost in the pages.

[Space Flow]

I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

I understand that general relativity concerns itself with gravitational acceleration and position in the gravitational field.

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

timey, yours is a common misconception that GR is a theory about Gravity.
GR is "the" theory of relativity.
SR is as Alan put it a very special case.
I would go so far as to even say it is a metaphor for part of GR.
SR is a great way to describe the time and space effects of speed. Just for conceptual understanding. To extend that Understanding to real world situations you have to use GR.

It helps to think of GR as the movie and SR as the advertising poster. The still image.

[Space Flow]

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

timey, am I reading it wrong or are you trying to say that there is a preferred reference frame within SR?
You seem to be saying that one of the reference frames is accelerated.
SR in not dealing with acceleration can not have a preferred frame. Both frames can rightfully say that they are at rest and it is the other one moving.
As I said SR is a teaching aid. If you want to refer to real world situations, then you are looking at a dynamic and changing Universe, not a still frame, and you have to use GR.

[timey]

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

timey, am I reading it wrong or are you trying to say that there is a preferred reference frame within SR?
You seem to be saying that one of the reference frames is accelerated.
SR in not dealing with acceleration can not have a preferred frame. Both frames can rightfully say that they are at rest and it is the other one moving.
As I said SR is a teaching aid. If you want to refer to real world situations, then you are looking at a dynamic and changing Universe, not a still frame, and you have to use GR.

I have set out some thought experiments in posts 185, 187, and 196 that clearly show my line of questioning.  I have used the wrong terminology in describing the reference frame as accelerated.  What I mean is that the observer is observing a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity that is faster relative to his own.

In this instance the reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers frame will be experiencing a slowing of its time relative to the observers frame due to its greater velocity.  This is correct right?

The reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers reference frame will experience a contracting of its experience of distance relative to the observers reference frame.  This is correct right?

These considerations describe the experience of time and distance for 'things', 'mass', 'matter'... This is correct right?

Velocity related slowing of time is a proven fact.  Is this correct?

The Lorentz transformations are a description of these considerations.  This is correct right?

General relativity describes the acceleration of gravity and position within a gravitational field and is a description of the space in between things.  Is this correct?

And general relativity also decribes that 'things', 'mass', 'matter', will experience an increase in their rate of time in a decreased gravitational field, because time in a decreased gravitational field runs at a faster rate relative to the rate of time in an increased gravitational field.  This is correct right?

The Lorentz transformations play a role in the general relativity field equations.  Is this correct?

What I wish to understand is how the general relativity field equations have incorporated the concepts of special relativity that are, if I am correct in my thinking, concerning themselves with 'things', 'mass', 'matter', into describing the space between 'things', 'mass', 'matter', and how gravitational acceleration and general relativity time dilation fits into the GR field equations in relation to the Lorentz transformations.

[Space Flow]

What I mean is that the observer is observing a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity that is faster relative to his own.

This is the part that I find confusing. The use of the word "faster" in that sentence does not denote one frame stationary relative to another. Instead it reads like you are trying to compare one moving frame from the reference of another moving frame. That is not a SR situation.

In this instance the reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers frame will be experiencing a slowing of its time relative to the observers frame due to its greater velocity.  This is correct right?

If you omit the word faster, than that sentence would be correct.

These considerations describe the experience of time and distance for 'things', 'mass', 'matter'... This is correct right?

Velocity related slowing of time is a proven fact.  Is this correct?

The Lorentz transformations are a description of these considerations.  This is correct right?

These things are correct within GR, and can be said to be correct within SR with the above-mentioned modification of removal of the word faster. SR only deals with reference frames that can consider themselves to be at rest.

General relativity describes the acceleration of gravity and position within a gravitational field and is a description of the space in between things.  Is this correct?

Yes that is correct. that is part of what GR describes.
GR is the theory of relativity of all things relative in the Universe.

And general relativity also decribes that 'things', 'mass', 'matter', will experience an increase in their rate of time in a decreased gravitational field, because time in a decreased gravitational field runs at a faster rate relative to the rate of time in an increased gravitational field.  This is correct right?

Totally correct. Time runs faster in the middle of a Void than it does in the suburbs of a galaxy.

The Lorentz transformations play a role in the general relativity field equations.  Is this correct?

Correct.

What I wish to understand is how the general relativity field equations have incorporated the concepts of special relativity that are, if I am correct in my thinking, concerning themselves with 'things', 'mass', 'matter', into describing the space between 'things', 'mass', 'matter', and how gravitational acceleration and general relativity time dilation fits into the GR field equations in relation to the Lorentz transformations.

OK. This is where currently accepted views and my own differ.
You see by my views there is no difference between the two scenarios.
The equivalence principle is there to tie the two together in the Einsteinian accepted curved space definition of the lorenz transformations.
Where acceleration in free space, which leeds to increased speed, is equivalent to being in a gravity field through the curvature of spacetime.

I on the other hand can demonstrate that the equivalence principle applies because the two situations are actually equivalent. They are exactly the same situation.  Relative Acceleration between matter and spacetime. Acceleration can always be felt by the material object being accelerated. There is only one reference frame that feeling can come from and it isn't relative to any other object.
So in the case of gravity it is space that is accelerating past the surface of a planet and anything in contact with that surface.
Accelerating in free space it is matter that does the accelerating past space. Either way it is relative movement between those two that gives us a Universe.
Anything not accelerating in respect to the spacetime that contains it is said to be Geodesic and will remain in free fall. No mater what an outside observer may see it doing.
If you want to learn more about this theory that directly answers your question, re read spaceflow and associated ideas here; https://www.facebook.com/SpaceTime-Flow-595088680534432/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

[guest39538]

I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.

Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.

I have not once denied the results of the experiments, I am saying the results are not what you think they mean.  i.e the clock and clocks rate can not affect what it is measuring.
I have a tape measure, I have a shorter tape measurer, wow distance contracts if I use the smaller tape  measure. (sarcasm)

in comparison

.
I have a clock measure, I have a shorter clock measurer, wow time contracts if I use the smaller clock  measure.



Can you not see what you are doing?

and there is gravitational time dilation and relativistic time dilation, I believe your scenario was gravitational time dilation..  what science fails to consider is if you move a set of scales a distance, they have to be recalibrated.

[guest39538]

then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength. 

The light is beginning to dawn! Welcome to the rational world, friend.

And in the real world, both clocks, both clocks rates, and the observer are all in time and do not affect the time they are in.

[alancalverd]

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

Almost!

We are nearly back to Reply #1. An observer moving with the stick (i.e. stationary in relation to the stick) sees the stick at its "proper" length, any other observer sees it contracted.

But "faster" is meaningless here because there is no universal reference frame. You can treat any constant velocity as zero, and the relativistic contraction is completely symmetric (you shrink in my eyes, I shrink in yours) if the relative velocity is constant.

[guest39538]

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

Almost!

We are nearly back to Reply #1. An observer moving with the stick (i.e. stationary in relation to the stick) sees the stick at its "proper" length, any other observer sees it contracted.

But "faster" is meaningless here because there is no universal reference frame. You can treat any constant velocity as zero, and the relativistic contraction is completely symmetric (you shrink in my eyes, I shrink in yours) if the relative velocity is constant.

If you are both travelling at the same speed relatively the objects cancel each other out.

[alancalverd]

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

[timey]

Space Flow, if you take on board my scenario of an observer on a railway station platform, standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law with each train carriage that is passing at a constant velocity,  this is why I said the observed reference frame is moving faster than the observers reference frame.

No matter, I'm getting the info I want, I think (chuckle)

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are used to describe the effects of time dilation and distance contraction in relation to velocity for matter.

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are also used to describe the stretching of the fabric of space.  Is this correct?

I think you just confirmed this, right?  (Scratches head...(chuckle))

I get exactly where you are coming from about the equivalence principle.

Yes, established physics states that gravitational time dilation is apparent in a gravitational field.  If the field decreases, the rate of time increases.  Just to check, it is not the Lorentz transformations that describes this gravitational time dilation?  Right?

I'm going somewhere with this, but let me first check that I'm correct so far please...

I'll certainly have a read of the link.  Thanks!

[guest39538]

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?

[alancalverd]

If you are both travelling at the same speed relatively the objects cancel each other out.

Almost there! Same speed relative to what? I think you mean "stationary with respect to each other"

[alancalverd]

I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?

The fairy tales are in your head, friend, but you are beginning to replace them with common sense and observation.

[guest39538]

Space Flow, if you take on board my scenario of an observer on a railway station platform, standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law with each train carriage that is passing at a constant velocity,  this is why I said the observed reference frame is moving faster than the observers reference frame.

No matter, I'm getting the info I want, I think (chuckle)

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are used to describe the effects of time dilation and distance contraction in relation to velocity for matter.

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are also used to describe the stretching of the fabric of space.  Is this correct?

I think you just confirmed this, right?  (Scratches head...(chuckle))

I get exactly where you are coming from about the equivalence principle.

Yes, established physics states that gravitational time dilation is apparent in a gravitational field.  If the field decreases, the rate of time increases.  Just to check, it is not the Lorentz transformations that describes this gravitational time dilation?  Right?

I'm going somewhere with this, but let me first check that I'm correct so far please...

I'll certainly have a read of the link.  Thanks!

correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.

[guest39538]

I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?

The fairy tales are in your head, friend, but you are beginning to replace them with common sense and observation.

I have no fairy tales in my head, I never had or have, it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself, and this is exactly what science is saying, you are all saying that the caesium rate is time itself, when I observe the caesium atom and its rate, I observe it is in time.

[Space Flow]

I have not once denied the results of the experiments, I am saying the results are not what you think they mean.  i.e the clock and clocks rate can not affect what it is measuring.

At least we are still in agreement. You see I understand that is what you are saying.
What I am asking is what "in the way you think things are", causes those experiments carried out multiple times by multiple different unconnected and dedicated experimenters with multiple different methods to all produce the same results. Results that are perfectly predicted by GR.
See I am not arguing with your statement that these results are not caused by what I think causes them. I am asking you to explain to me how you explain why they are so. What causes these professionally perfectly calibrated systems of measurement to all show the same differences in what they are measuring.
Don't keep saying what I think is wrong, show me a better reason for the observations, and convince me that what you say causes these results is closer to the truth than what others say.
This is your chance to prove to everyone that your stories are worth listening to.
The stage is yours. Dazzle us with your explanation of why the Universe is showing us these misleading data.