0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Jim is wrong on that point.Polar time at sea level is the same as equatorial time at sea level. It's a case of two wrongs making a right.
(The change in gravity due to the bulge is canceled by centripetal acceleration.
SR doesn't come into play because these observers are stationary with respect to one another and with respect to the center of mass.
With regards to point #2, mass has nothing to do with it. It's all about ground speed (i.e. SR) and altitude (i.e. GR.)
If all of the busybodies meet at the pub at sunset, each will have aged by a different amount. Everyone will agree that the sun has indeed set; they just won't agree about the elapsed time since sunrise.
Ethos - In my case this is a matter of honour not ego...I do not have a problem if someone ridicules my posts on the basis of an informed position, but Jeff is basing his response on incorrect information that he has posted in response to my posts on his 'is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields' thread.I never have a problem admitting my weak spots or mistakes, but I do have a problem with a person posing as an authority and ridiculing me based on an understanding of conventional physics that is incorrect.
The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.
Was it Dyson, Hoover or Henry that gave me away?
Quote from: timey on 06/04/2017 02:20:43The point is that a higher frequency be associated with a faster rate of time for the emitting body.Then if we take a single spectral line, we'd expect it to shift according to the temperature of the emitter. It doesn't. Lines appear and disappear according to whether the temperature is high enough to bring bound electrons into particular energy states, but the inter-state energy, and hence the frequency of the photon emitted or absorbed by that state change, is not temperature-dependent. Therefore time is not temperature-dependent. http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm has good diagrams.
But you do profess to know that GR and SR time dilations are one and the same thing...
The time dilation of SR is a special case of the time dilation of GR hence why it I called special relativity. It simply omits the gravitational field and uses flat spacetime exclusively. This is contained within the framework of general relativity. They are only distinguished to show differences caused by the presence or absence of a gravitational field. To make them distinct entities is an artificial device.
In the Special Theory of Relativity, published in his so-called “miraculous year” of 1905, Einstein had the audacity to turn the question around and ask: what must happen to our common notions of space and time so that when the distance light travels in a given time is measured, the answer is always 300,000 km/s? For example, if a spaceship fires a laser beam at a piece of space debris flying towards it at half the speed of light, the laser beam still travels at exactly the speed of light, not at one-and-a-half times the speed of light. He began to realize that either the measurement of the distance must be smaller than expected, or the time taken must be greater than expected, or both.In a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity tells us that a moving object measures shorter in its direction of motion as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it disappears. It also tells us that moving clocks run more slowly as their velocity increases until, at the speed of light, they stop running altogether. In fact, it also tells us (as we will see in subsequent sections) that the mass of a moving object measures more as its velocity increases until, at the speed of light, it becomes infinite. Thus, one person’s interval of space is not the same as another person’s, and time runs at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds.