0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

Quote from: timey on 10/02/2016 19:21:58Surely 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.

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

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.

Quote from: timey on 11/02/2016 00:18:19I 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.

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?

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.

Quote from: timey on 11/02/2016 00:34:34k, 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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 23:54:21I 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 23:54:21then 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.

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

Quote from: timey on 11/02/2016 00:34:34k, 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.

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?

Quote from: timey on 11/02/2016 00:18:19What 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.

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

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

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!

Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 09:59:41I 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 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.