Maybe I am missing something at this point as well. Isn't dilation an effect of VELOCITY and not acceleration?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > I have about 4 fundamentally different thought experiments to debunk > Relativity in various ways besides various other arguments involving > electromagnetism. > > While they have never been really hard to grasp, I have never had one that > can be described in 2 quick sentences and be really easy to grasp like this > one is, so logically infallible: Equivalence Principle > > If you drop a clock in Einstein's accelerating elevator it is instantly no > longer accelerating and not subject to gravitational like time dilation. > Either the same is true if the test is done in a gravity field (the clock > is seen to run fast the instant you let go), or you can easily tell the > difference! > > *So while I am very used to being ignored most of time time*, I really > hope I am not ignored this time because coming up with a conclusive > argument is not enough if it takes a while to read, or if there are enough > distractions and misunderstandings to argue about. > > I really hope to get a reply from everyone here that thinks they have even > a basic grasp of the equivalence principle, time dilation and so on. > > Obviously disingenuous objections can always be made but I think this is > to clear cut to be badly effected by disbelief and smoke screens. > > So please, tell me I've done it. (either made a new expectation about the > imperfection of the equivalence principle, or a new expectation about time > dilation and gravity) > > Or Tell me I haven't because the equivalence principle was always known to > have this fault. > Or because gravitational time dilation was always known to have this quirk. > > Or tell me I haven't because the non-accelerating object will be time > dilated by the acceleration of a local object because of some frame > dragging effect and everyone knows that. > > Or tell me you don't understand it. > Tell me you don't believe me but you can't explain it. > > But please this time, don't ignore me. > > John > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
