Brent, Let me ask you some questions to clarify what you are saying here...
To make it simpler assume two observers, A and B. A is stationary on the surface of a hugely massive planet. Now B plummets past him in free fall. Consider the situation as B passes A just before he hits the ground. I agree B is in free fall in inertial motion along a geodesic so there is no gravitational field experienced nor any acceleration. However A is experiencing an intense gravitational acceleration because the surface of the planet resists his free fall. Now assume another observer C outside the gravitational field. Now who sees whose clock slow and by how much and for what reason? There are 6 cases as each of the 3 observers observes the clocks of 2 others. Specifically does C see the clocks of A and B slow equally? Does B's clock actually slow because he's accelerating in a gravitation field, but A's clock doesn't because he is free falling? Does A see C's clock slow the same amount as C sees A's slow? Does B see C's clock slow the same amount as C sees B's slow? How do A and B view each other's clocks? When B hits the ground does his clock change its speed (assuming it survives the hit)? This would have to be the case if A's and B's clocks were running at different rates as B plummets past A. Thanks, Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 2:25:21 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/27/2014 5:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous > because it doesn't specify frames of reference correctly. > > The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's > clock, but obviously not by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of > course ACTUALLY objectively ticking slower because it is falling into a > gravity well which is an absolute, not a relative phenomenon. > > Contrary to what you said, the object's comoving clock DOES actually > 'physically' (your words) tick slower. it's just that the infalling clock > can't measure its own slowing... > > Obviously one can't tell how fast a clock is ticking by comparing the > clock to itself. That's proper time which always appears to tick at the > same rate, but ONLY because all comoving processes tick in synch. Proper > time does NOT measure an actual gravitational time dilation, or any time > dilation for that matter. > > The infalling observer has an ABSOLUTE slowing of its clock due to > increasing gravitation but just cannot locally measure that slowing. > > > The infalling observer just falls in an goes about his business (assuming > a very large BH) until he gets spaghettified by tidal forces near the > singularity. There's no slowing of his clock. What could possibly be the > mechanism for slowing it? He's on an inertial frame. He isn't even > accelerated. For the clock to slow would be a violation of the principle > of equivalence. > > > Thus in the infalling observer's experience as his clock slows he will > never actually reach the event horizon because his clock comes to a > complete ACTUAL PHYSICAL stop at that point. > > > Nope. Try reading Lewis Carroll Epstein's "Relativity Visualized". A good > clock keeps proper time along its world line. Gravitational time dilation > is a purely geometric effect of spacetime (just like the twin paradox). > The clock *appears* to run slower in the gravitational well because it has > to traverse more space. > > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
