----- Original Message ----
> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 5:55:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
>
>
On 04/01/2010 05:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Stephen A.
> Lawrence <
> href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]>
>> To:
> ymailto="mailto:[email protected]";
> href="mailto:[email protected]";>[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!
Only if potentials exist without fields, can it be said that time dilation
"doesn't depend in any way on *variations* in the *strength* of the
gravitational field."
Harry
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
