Re: Mass vs distance
- From: Ian Macmillan <iandmac@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:47:10 +0000 (UTC)
"paulaireilly" <paulaireilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140417069.510072.92490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ian MacMillan wrote:I'm having trouble organising a response to the various issues here!
As I understand it, if a transmitter at the bottom of the hill in
principle emits a series of pulses, a receiver at the top receives the
same number of pulses, but at a lower rate over a longer period.
This is what general relativity predicts, and experiment confirms this
prediction.
While I think I understand about the energy of a mass raised and
lowered in a gravitational field....
I imagine that as a clock and a rod rise in a gravitational field, the
clock runs faster and the rod gets longer so that the speed of light
remains constant at every level. Is this a reasonable view?
I can see that if individual photons lose energy on the way up, their sum
total energy at the at the top will be lower. My problem is to understand
how this relates to the presumably equivalent situation in the accellerating
lift, where as far as I can see, the total energy is unchanged, especially
if you think "waves"..
Incidentally, (possible red herring) I think the lift situation differs
between where the lift accelleration is constant come what may, or whether
it arises from a constant force.
So it seems that rods and clocks vary with height so that the speed of light
is the same locally at each height.
It also seems that the speed of light at the bottom of the hill is lower if
observed from the top of the hill, because rods and times there are shorter
if observed from above. Do I understand this correctly?
If a standard clock runs slower at the bottom as observed from above,
standard frequencies generated there must also be lower.So this raises a
doubt in my mind about whether the relative lower frequencies are from the
source, or whether they arise from work done in raising the energy. For
example, you can see the second hand turning slower through your telescope,
where I think the information is independent of energy considerations.
But I still cannot connect the effects in the accellerating lift with those
with the hill!
All the best
Ian Macmillan
.
- References:
- Mass vs distance
- From: Ian Macmillan
- Re: Mass vs distance
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: Mass vs distance
- From: paulaireilly
- Mass vs distance
- Prev by Date: Re: Curvature by Cartan's method?
- Next by Date: Re: Attaching conductive cable to orbital object
- Previous by thread: Re: Mass vs distance
- Next by thread: Re: Mass vs distance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
