0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Remember your measuring stick also changes distances. This is what equivalence is all about. Not just time as you understand it but distance for reaction rates measured by a frames clock. Your position puts reaction rates and all physics different between frames. What a mess. Curvature of space and lensing of galaxies show dilation. Gravity follows dilation and Pe to the center of mass. We can measure the dilation and Pe differences as reaction rates but the reaction rates always follow the frames tick rate. So the physics are the same in every frame. You want to change the speed of light? The speed is the same as a constant where energy dilation increases the distance light has to travel at a constant. This is the easiest way to follow physics. Your way causes more confusion and is inaccurate because dilation is viewable in space. Light is constant!!
Again GoC, you are completely missing the fact that having a temporally dilated g-field would result in the measuring stick remaining unchanged!Constant metres!The speed of light does remain constant as it is held relative to the dilated second of the g-field.The equivalence principle is upheld in that in each reference frame, the speed of light remains 299 792 458 metres held relative to the length of second of that reference frame.Then for particles with rest mass, all m at h from M experiences an equal addition of gravity potential energy that is derived from its position at h from M, and is not calculated with respect to mass value, (this notion is synonymous to free fall back to front), and again, the equivalence principle is upheld...All m at h from M remains the equivalent to each other in any reference frame, and this gives us a physical cause for a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock, and reciprocally a physical cause as to why m at h from M does not register that their clock is time dilated.A clever person might note that the light and the mass will be subject to differing rates of time, and they would be correct. The lights time is negative to the m at h from M's time at that coordinate.However, m at h from M would not be able to distinguish this, because if the m at h from M's rate of time is of equal difference to that of the g-field, with respect to ground level M, but positive rather than negative, the light will appear to be travelling 299 792 458 metres from the point of view of both rates of time.My way gives us a fully described cyclic universe....And it is current physics that is the MESS!
I am using 'only' the attractive force of the g-field when I say the the g-field is temporally derived, rather than spatially.
Biology is a direct result of energy, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a connection.
No - I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.
It's not if one turns the equivalence principle upside down like I am.
Quote from: timey on 24/02/2017 15:57:53No - I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is a function of time dilation at that position, and that it is this time dilation that causes the directional accelerated motion.But that's my point. We are arguing about the validity of an interpretation. Both views are valid. Whatever gets you through the night. Just don't confuse an interpretation with a law of physics.
Gravitational acceleration is an observed quantity that at present has no physical causation in current physics. This is s well documented fact.My model's rendition of the Big Bang does have physical cause, although if one traced back my model's universe's cycles back in time to the first Big Bang, which my model places in the microscopic region, in that each cycle of my model's universe is bigger than the last, admittedly my model is also at a loss to describe how something was created out of nothing!