On 04/01/2010 05:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:01:43 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction >> >> > > On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >>
>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Stephen A. >> Lawrence < > >> Gravitational time dilation can be predicted from an argument based >> on conservation of energy and the interconvertibility of mass and >> energy, as I showed in an earlier post. And it doesn't depend in >> any way on variations in the strength of the gravitational field. > > > how can you have GP without an GF? I never said, or implied, that you could. As I just said, in the text you were responding to, this time with added emphasis: >> it doesn't depend in any way on *variations* in the *strength* >> of the gravitational field. To paraphrase: The **VARIATIONS** in the field STRENGTH are not relevant to gravitational time dilation. I never said you didn't need to have a FIELD! > Harry > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® > 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at > http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ > >
