Robittybob1

This article covers free-fall at a very basic level but doesn't get into time dilation. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle

Do you think we could ever get to say "Mass causes time dilation" and "time dilation results in gravity" instead of saying "Gravity influences mass"?

@xyzt - You found what I wrote a little difficult to understand so I'll have another go, but that was an answer to your question, you asked: "Who said that they are accelerating?". So I gave you a rough answer but I will expand it. "To the remote observer the light bouncing across the light clock will appear be also falling and hence it is traveling further therefore the frame's time is dilated (the ticks of the falling clock will be getting longer by the tick, the time dilation will increase as the free-fall continues.) From the point of view of the local observer that time dilation will keep the "velocity locally constant" The light will travel further in a longer period of time which is what you need to get a constant velocity of light. From the frame of the local observer they are not accelerating - I understand that. Now did that help?

There could be something in that, for Judas Thomas was sent to India, and he was one of Jesus' closest disciple. Maybe the twin was sent to the same place where Jesus learnt philosophy earlier. I'd like to see more evidence of this if possible.

The light in the light clock will for an outside observer be falling and hence traveling further hence the time is dilated (the ticks of the falling clock will be getting longer by the tick.) Does that keep their "velocity locally constant" Further in a longer period of time sounds like the beginning of constant velocity. From the frame of the local observer they are not accelerating - I understand that.

Wasn't it simpler than that? In the free falling frame all physics experiments would behave the same for the person within the free fall frame. So that seemed to me to suggest that the light photon would still hit the sensor. Does this mean it moves exactly like the rest of the frame. The lead ball would remain at the same height even staying level with the photon. I'm going to check out the physics - in the weekend.

Yes I tried to find the name of those worms from Southland (NZ) and found the whole exercise frustrating.

Can you please explain it in terms of the light clock in the free falling frame, I can't yet relate to equations unless you can say them in words, sorry.

This is the one thing that has baffled me over the last week, and you are the first person to answer that statement. When I was drawing my light clock in the free falling frame I thought the observer inside the frame would see the photon strike the light clock bouncing side to side, but from an outside observer the frame is accelerating in the gravitational field, so doesn't that imply the light inside the frame is falling at the same rate as everything else in that frame? Did you understand me there? What is the explanation for light not falling at the same rate as everything else, as Einstein said?

I wonder how I'd go about that? Can they be just visually checked?

I think it shows the beginning of science. Science before scientific methods.

Light takes a longer path because of gravity or spacetime is warped so the shortest path is now a curved one (geodesic). So can it be turned around with mass causing time dilation zones and mass moving toward time dilated regions so mass and light takes a curved straight path producing the effects of gravity. In other words gravity becomes the emergent property of mass compressing/dilating time. That was the first time I tried to write that sentence. just a thought that has been developing.

So what is the mechanism of time dilation in your opinion (understanding).

That might be true but can you be certain that was the case for the worms on my farm in NZ? That is a big step to take.

Now I'm lost. Where were we?

Well then I must check up if you have the changes in the right way, I thought that as the photon moves away from a mass its wavelength increases and its frequency decreases. So the reverse applies to a photon going toward a mass, its frequency will increase and its wavelength will decrease.

When you say "The photons wavelength increases when it travels to a higher gravity well" which way are they traveling, toward a mass or away from it?

I only emphasizing the decrease in velocity as well as increasing velocity. I know what you mean but one you have to add energy and the other remove energy, so they are not entirely the same. I thought this statement wrong "An increase in wavelength means more energy." IMO it was increased in frequency.

I think you have got some of your physics wrong. Read it again and you'll see what I mean. You seem to be tired. Spacetime warpage seemed to me to be a change in the time dimension(s) only. It seemed that you agreed to part of that? I was getting confused because of your errors. I have highlighted what I find difficult. I thought this statement wrong "An increase in wavelength means more energy." IMO it was increased in frequency.

Not its gravitation attraction at a fixed distance from the Center of Mass.

Would "compressed time" (if there was such a thing) affect energy, or mass or density of matter? Does slowed time have more mass, does a stronger G field have more mass? OK I'm not saying I have anything like a new model yet.

How did you work out the worms in a compost pile were a different class? Could it just be like humans some of us live in cities ,some in the country? I didn't put Tiger worms in the compost, they were just good old regular earthworms as far as I could tell. The worms just might be able to have different strategies for different habitats?

Only problem I could see was that momentum is mass times velocity, so it doesn't define mass for mass is a component of momentum.

Is it this? From Google definition: "mass definition. In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration." But once it moves it keeps moving resisting deceleration, so it resists acceleration and deceleration. It takes energy to get it moving so that resistance is the transfer of energy.

Was that in response to my post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87227-a-new-model-for-general-relativity/#entry845653