Leaking, this does not apply to the elevator example though. And the equivalence principle states that G-force and Gravity aren't similar but are the same thing.
So if the non-accelerating clock in the elevator can't be reasoned to be time dilated according to GR since it occupies an inertial reference frame, but in in the gravity example... Then the equivalence principle so the equivalence-ish principle if it predicts different things for a thrown or dropped clock. If you can tell the difference easily, it isn't equivalent! Personally I would view that a person standing on earth is accelerating relative to space but one going with the distortion of space (falling) isn't as far as space is concerned. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, leaking pen <[email protected]> wrote: > gravity is an acceleration vector, it IS accelerating in relation to > itself, not just in relation to you. In addition, it's an accelerating > acceleration vector. > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:57 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock >> upwards and then it falls down, the clock looks to be accelerating, but it >> is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating and so your time should >> slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of General >> Relativity (Gravity=time dilation & Gravity=inertia force) but you can't >> observe other clocks that are in space around you not accelerating to be >> effected by this form of time dilation. >> >> So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let a >> clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than your >> time rate. >> >> So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General >> Relativity is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal to an observer >> far away from the black hole! >> At least until it stops falling. >> >> This is not AFAIK a recognized conclusion of General Relativity. >> >> >> John >> > >
