Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:17:55 -0700

Dear Eric Baird:

"Eric Baird" <eric_baird@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:fkoel0pgsdb035gpk4ui0c1htpg0fvqodc@4ax.com...
...
> Or Michell's "Newtonian" 1783 calcuation of the gravitaitonal
> weakening of light leaving high-gravity stars,

... depending on how "weakening" was defined, of course...

> [ If you want to verify that NM needs to use the second equation
> rather than the first, take a look at "crude" Newtonian gravity ... it
> required that the energy lost by light climbing out of a gravity-well
> had to be total when the gravitational differential equalled c, which
> was the case with E'/E=(c-v)/c, but not with the other equation. ]

... and this isn't it.

Nice "rant", by the way. Some spot on, some pretty stretched. Do you feel
beter now?

David A. Smith