[Bogie_smiles]

It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity. However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.

An example of the reference frame supported against gravity is the person standing on the ground. An example of a constantly accelerating frame of reference is a person standing in a rocket that is accelerating at the same rate as gravity. The people will experience the same sense of gravity, and they would weigh the same on a scale.


“… and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity.”

In a free falling frame, the person is weightless,

I’m not sure I understand an inertial frame with constant velocity. Can you give me an example?


Edit: Oh, here: An inertial frame of reference, in classical physics, is a frame of reference in which bodies, whose net force acting upon them is zero, are not accelerated, that is they are at rest or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line. In analytical terms, it is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Conceptually, in classical physics and special relativity, the physics of a system in an inertial frame have no causes external to the system. An inertial frame of reference may also be called an inertial reference frame, inertial frame, Galilean reference frame, or inertial space.More at Wikipedia

I was only considering part of the definition of an inertial frame, the "at rest" or not accelerated. I see that there is also the part, "or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line". That would be like sitting in a car going 70 mph.

Ok then.

[Bogie_smiles]

…
However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.

That possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?

[Bored chemist]

They have the same ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass.
(as far as we know, everything has- but there's no obvious reason why)

In English?

Yes it is.
And, not only that, but it's all made up of words and phrases that you can google if you don't know what they mean.
I'm not, for example, trying to redefine words to mean something else.
It's less confusing this way.
Perhaps you should try it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inertial-mass
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gravitational-mass?s=t

[guest39538]

They have the same ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass.
(as far as we know, everything has- but there's no obvious reason why)

In English?

Yes it is.
And, not only that, but it's all made up of words and phrases that you can google if you don't know what they mean.
I'm not, for example, trying to redefine words to mean something else.
It's less confusing this way.
Perhaps you should try it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inertial-mass
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gravitational-mass?s=t

You have not defined what mass is, you are saying something is equal which is the question I asked originally, that something which is polarity explains gravity.

They have the same ratio of gravitational polarity to inertial polarity.

[Bored chemist]

You have not defined what mass is, you are saying something is equal which is the question I asked originally, that something which is polarity explains gravity.

They have the same ratio of gravitational polarity to inertial polarity.

Of course I haven't defined mass; that would be silly. There's already a definition for it.
If I tried redefining t...
hang on, I'm getting a sense of  deja vu here.

I'm not, for example, trying to redefine words to mean something else.
It's less confusing this way.
Perhaps you should try it.