Re: 4 + clock
ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: DavidBowman: "Still trying to understand the twin paradox -- I'm a little slow"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: C - Constant?"
- In reply to: Daniel Weston: "Re: 4 + clock"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: 4"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:00:42 -0800
Daniel Weston wrote:
>
> For reasons I do not quite understand, gravity slows a clock, but
> acceleration does not.
What's the basis of your assertion?
Gravitational redshift is due clocks at different locations
exchanging information about their "rates" by exchanging light
signals which have a constant frequency wrt the coordinate time
in the underlying spacetime. But the clocks' proper times
run at different rates wrt the coordinate time.
That's just a description of how the Pound-Rebka experiment
was designed.
If you want to "design" an experiment that shows that acceleration
doesn't do this, then design it yourself. The Equivalence Principle
just tells you that gravity and acceleration are LOCALLY
indistinguishable. It doesn't tell you anything about what
separated clocks will behave.
> Can anybody utilize this fact to design an
> experiment that the rocket ship traveler could use to determine whether
> he was accelerating or in a gravity field?
See above.
John Anderson
- Next message: DavidBowman: "Still trying to understand the twin paradox -- I'm a little slow"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: C - Constant?"
- In reply to: Daniel Weston: "Re: 4 + clock"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: 4"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|