Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
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.
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 |
One question ...am I the author to whom you refer???
I don't understand so much of this stuff all I can say is I appreciate all the folk who tolerate my ideas... on the positive it keeps me going..a road I will never find the end to...
alex