Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Thank you Steven and thank you Fahim.
Well that site has a straight path and a curved path covered and I am happy with my current understanding..I think 
What does bother me is the principle itself... unless I have it incorrect acceleration is related to gravity so as to express it in a force humans can understand but in doing so we let "time" creep into the mix.. I can not see why it is there..its relevance is only so humans can relate the magnitude of the "force" ..er which is not a force by the way  and without it how different will general relativity be then???  |
The author is trying to use gravitational redshift calculations to debunk equivalence. What it means is that a clock will run slower in a higher gravitational potential compared to a lower state.
There is a serious problem using this argument.
Gravitational redshift is a direct consequence of the principle of equivalence. You can't use gravitational redshift as a counterargument against equivalence. If equivalence doesn't exist neither does gravitational redshift
.
The author also doesn't appear to realise that the gravitational red shift is a function of the rest mass or inertial mass, not the relativistic mass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
I have yet to actually see the 10 field equations..not that it will do much good as I may as well be reading Chinese..I must have seen them at least once someplace by now one would think ..but I can not recall...
alex |
Not only have I seen the equations but had to derive them as part of my Applied Maths degree.
Originally there were 256 equations but with zero solutions, symmetry requirements etc, it came down to an even ten.
Regards
Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small