0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

When you say a recipe for the 3rd time dilation what do you mean?Is it not enough to describe that this time dilation is the cause of gravitational acceleration. That a body travelling at constant speed in a vacuum can be accelerated towards an M by seconds becoming progressively shorter closer to M, to the accelerative value of GM/r^2(if that is the equation that describes acceleration?)...?I'll look at the link..

Anyway - perhaps someone can help me...If we were to say that the value of GR time dilation, associated with M Earth, caused an acceleration to an object travelling at a constant speed, i.e. being accelerated by shorter seconds, negating any gravitational attraction or other phenomenon completely, what value of an acceleration would GR time dilation cause in metres per second squared?

THE Alan Guth? Isn't he famously brilliant?

I imagine he would be loathe to drudge through this discussion thread because we are still waxing philosophical about timey's theory. We have yet to establish the (mathematical) recipe for her 3rd dilation for example. The relativistic correction to the SC metric thread might be more up his alley:

The density ratio you (Colin2B) speak of goes into the specification of the spatial topology in the Friedmann analysis. It's one of the parameters you fiddle around with to get the FD metric to match Hubble's data.

No, those maths are too complex for me, and it sounds like a calculation of an expanding universe. So no, there may be similarities from a mathematical perspective if one were to try and calculate a contracting model, but Freidman is not calculating a contracting model, nor is he stating the accelerative force of gravity as being time dilation related, far as I can see.

If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)

No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h^{2}. This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it.

In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.