0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.

As the body rises it loses kinetic energy and gains potential energy. As it descends it loses pe and gains ke.

I've read at least 5 books entirely dedicated to the subject of SR and GR, and Einstein's own papers, while practically every other physics book I've read also is inclusive of the subject.And... I am totally sick to death of the twin paradox. What more is there to say about it? It's not complicated to understand.Yes it does seem nonsensical under the current remit of physics, because it is nonsensical under the remit of current physics. And where something is nonsensical it's generally because it is wrong.

Therefore, because the observations stand as sound of time being lost under the remit of SR, and time being gained under the remit of GR at h from M, where a person with the clock will age in keeping with the clock, the equivalence principle is challenged.

One cannot state the other reference frame as equivalent by stating that the atom does not have a lower, or a higher frequency via SR and GR.

One could mention that the balance between pe and ke in this manner will ensure that the energy of the atom will remain the same in the higher reference frame as it is in the lower reference frame, and there is a consideration to support this having an effect on a clock.

But then one must look at what light is doing when it is approaching M and the fact of light gaining ke...This being because lights frequency increases with the increased ke and decreased pe as it moves into the lower gravity potential, which is the opposite of what is occurring for the atom.

Leading me to my theory of an additional contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and the fact that light has no rest mass, and therefore the possibility arises that light is not affected by pe. That light might be being affected solely by this additional time dilation that my model adds.

And adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation then gives a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, and the fact that all m in free fall accelerates at the 'same rate', in that as m or light approaches M, the increasingly shortening length of seconds of this contra directional gravitational time dilation of 'open space' will accelerate all value of mass in free fall at the same rate.

Because this added contra directional time dilation is the exact value of GR time dilation at h from M only negative, the equivalence principle is upheld, in that the speed of light will be observed as constant at 299 792 458 metres per second at any gravity potential by the observer in the reference frame, due to the fact that if the speed of light travels a metre in a slower time that is equal in value to the faster rate of time of the observer, the distance travelled by the light will be equal under the remit of both rates of time.

As shown in line 2 and 3 of this diagram:The m will see the light travelling by the remit of its 10% faster second, and the light will be travelling under the remit of open space's 10% slower second, but the distance travelled by the light will be the same distance.Because the 90% light speed will take 10% longer to get there, and 'appear' to be travelling 10% longer metres per second of 'space'.And the 110% light speed will take 10% shorter to get there, and will be appear to be travelling 10% shorter metres per the second of the m.But according to m at h, and m's clock, the speed of light will be travelling 299 792 458 metres per its rate of second, and according to the rate of time of 'open space', the speed of light will be travelling at 299 792 458 metres per open space's second, and the equivalence principle is upheld.Now isn't that a more interesting conversation than the twin paradox?I'll bet you haven't heard anything like that put forward before...Honestly Mike, with all due respect to you, but as far as I'm concerned the twin paradox conversation is about as welcome to me, as "Stairway to Heaven" is to a guitar shop floor attendant.Im not suggesting changes to current physics because I do not understand the current physics, I'm doing it because I do.Have you read "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin?

"Current physics" is what actually happens, as far as we can measure it.It happens that photon frequency shifts correlate exactly with expectation as gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.It's fun to play Stairway to Heaven, Milestones, and the intro to Surrey with the Fringe on Top, and ask who first wrote that chord sequence. I think it was CPE Bach.

Different tick rates prove different distances in GR and dilation of length.

Quote from: JohnDuffield on 16/02/2017 22:15:03 what Einstein said: "the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".It can work just as equally if one says:"The curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is 'temporally' variable"To far better and more sensible results!

what Einstein said: "the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".