If I am wrong about this and this is an expected difference, then the equivalence principle is often wrongly stated to be far more bulletproof than it should be stated.
This source says: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf The Equivalence Principle says that it's not just that you're too inept to figure out a way to differentiate between them, but instead that there is *no possible local experiment you can perform to tell the difference, no matter how clever you are*. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:17 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Leaking, I guess you are implying the equivalence principle is not meant > to apply to dropped objects? > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:19 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
