Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult questions,
Take this example: Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead. By definition there is NO relative motion whatsoever. Nevertheless A's clock runs slower than B's and both A and B agree on that. This is because A is deeper in earth's gravity than B is. Brent says "more proper time nearer Earth". So how could geometry possibly explain this effect since there is NO relative motion in space, therefore no STc effect. Brent previously told us that "everything is geometry" and "acceleration does NOT slow time". But isn't this entirely an acceleration effect, that A's 1g gravitational acceleration is greater than B's centrifugal acceleration, so that A's clock slows relative to B's? What is your analysis of exactly how this comes about in detail. What's the proper way to analyze this case? Is there a geometric analysis? Is there an Epstein diagram? Thanks, Edgar On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:13:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/2/2014 3:17 PM, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> ... >> It's funny because this came up for me first because I speculated with >> some guys (and dolls) a lot nearer your level than mine - maybe 3/4 years >> back - that spacetime had a definite geometry. They came back very firm it >> did not. That even between the Earth and the Sun you couldn't look at it >> that way. I must say I couldn't accept what they were saying and said so, >> because for me, the geometry would be very clear that there was this huge >> gravity well oneside, and this relativily tiny one the other (earth). >> >> >> Dunno what was meant by "geometry". Einstein's equations relate the >> metric of spacetime to the location of stress energy. That seems plenty >> definite to me. Of course in application it's just a model and one >> neglects various effects thought to be small, e.g. gravity waves coming in >> from far away. >> > > ok maybe we can bridge this. I'm naively taking the most > popularized visual metaphor of Einstein's theory. The mattress as it were, > with the steel ball laying upon it as it were, and the indentation that > ball puts in the mattress as it were, and then the little animation that > often comes next, of the mattress now a plane represented by two sets of > respectively parallel lines, each set normal to the other resulting in > little squares, the indentation now the distortion of those squares > and the animated part the much littler ball rolling around the indented > section. > > if that's good enough that you can do the bridging work from where I am to > where things need to be for you to provide an answer that is within the > limits of what you're prepared to give in this sort of situation, > then, fabulous :o) > > > That's not too bad a picture. It's mainly misleading in that it's time > that's warped. There's more proper time nearer the Earth than farther > away. That's what makes things "fall down" when they are on inertial > paths. But that really doesn't bear on the question of whether the > geometry is definite or not. Do you know what they meant by it not being > definite? Were they just talking about the possible quantum fluctuations > in the metric? Were they talking about general coordinate > transformations? or what? > > 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.
