81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 13, 2021, 09:26:22 PM »

Nothing you have shown in regards to the speeding up or slowing down of events requires bending spacetime.

Can time slow down for a light clock that is not moving through horizontal space?  If not, then yes, space must change shape for time to slow down.

Acceleration does not necessarily produce a 'warp in spacetime'. We have seen that the effects can be explained elsewise.

What is the elsewise? 

Yes, there is a reason. It takes longer for an object traveling at a set speed to travel on the diagonal route in the animation. Just look at the animation you provided. It shows how it would work in normal Newtonian space.

Of course it would be the same in Newtonian space.  The nature of spacetime didn’t change between Newton and Einstein, just our understanding of it did.  Newton just didn’t recognize the significance of the fact and how it related to gravity.

You are proposing a fanciful explanation for something which does not need to be fancifully explained. 

As opposed to the unfanciful explanation of some force that accelerates the earth up, without any explanation how it works or where it comes from.

These are just statements.

Statements that logically follow. You obviously disagree but don’t explain why.

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 13, 2021, 06:27:18 PM »

The animation that you posted gives a physical depiction of how it works without spacetime bending. Light travels at a set finite speed. It is clear that the path is longer when traveling diagonally than when travelling up and down. It is also clear that a bouncy ball with a set speed moving on a diagonal path like the diagonal photon would also take longer to bounce between the two surfaces

It shows exactly a bend is space time.  You said yourself, the light on the moving clock moves through diagonal space.  The light on the stationary clock moves through vertical space.  Bend something vertical and it becomes horizontal.

There is no reason for the light signal moving between the top and the bottom of the clock to tick at different rates except that there is a difference in the shape of  the spacetime through which the light signal moves. I don’t see how you can disagree with that (but I’m sure you’ll find a way). The shape of the space is different and accounts for the differing rate of ticks.  From that we can conclude that motion (specifically acceleration) creates a warp in space time.

How?

If two objects are moving along the same straight line at the same speed they are not in motion relative to one another. There will be no difference in the rate a light clock ticks for each object. When one of the objects changes its direction and/or speed (accelerates)  relative to the other the two objects are now in relative motion.  Motion now exists where previously there had been no motion. 

Now that the objects are in relative motion to one another, light clocks traveling with each object will tick at different rates.  And as I stated above, the only reason the light clocks would click at different rates is because the shape of the spacetime through which the light travels has changed. 

In short,
No motion=no difference in tick rate
No difference in tick rate=no difference shape of spacetime
No motion=no difference is shape of spacetime

As opposed to
Motion (resulting from acceleration)=difference in tick rate
Difference in tick rate=difference is shape of spacetime
Motion (resulting from acceleration)=difference in shape of spacetime.[/i]

Motion resulting from acceleration warps space time.

Now that we’ve taken the long way around(pun intended) to back where we started, I ask again

If acceleration produces a warp in spacetime and acceleration and gravity are equivalent, then why shouldn’t we conclude that a warp in spacetime is what we experience as gravity as opposed to some unknown mysterious force pushing the earth up?

We can't directly manipulate this hidden layer of reality, spacetime, to confirm that. Spacetime is not necessarily like any of those things.

You struggle with the concept that spacetime is an actual material thing, which is understandable.  Its whole other rabbit hole to go down, but if the equivalence principle is to hold up, then spacetime must be material.

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 13, 2021, 01:04:17 PM »

In your animation there the photon making the diagonal path takes longer to bounce between the mirrors when motion occurs because the light travels at a set speed and the particular diagonal path it has to make to bounce between the mirrors when in motion requires greater amount of space to complete the mirror circuit than simply bouncing up and down in the scenario where the mirrors are stationary.

Spacetime bending isn't required to do that. You can see its physical path and why it takes longer in the animation. That would also occur if it were a bouncy ball moving at a set speed through space doing that in those situations instead of a photon. The ball that has to move on the diagonal path would also bounce between the mirrors slower. No spacetime bending required.

You’re getting there, but you’re still not connecting the dots. The diagonal that the light signal must travel along...the bend in space time.  The physical space between the two ends of the moving clock is warped relative to the space between the two ends of the stationary clock.  In the animation the moving clock is ticking at half the rate as the stationary clock.  How would that diagonal chance if the moving clock were ticking at a quarter of the rate of the stationary clock?

If that’s not intuitive enough for you...Imagine a really, really tall building.  We will call it “space”.  As the top of space moves faster through time (because we know that a clock runs faster at the top of a building), than the bottom of “space” what happens to  space (building)?  It starts to tip, or bend or warp, whatever you want to call it.  The point is that because time is moving at a higher rate at the top than at the bottom, the shape of space changes as it moves through time.

Or how about this analogy...imagine two kayaks floating side by side going down a river and joined at the middle by pole.  The river is time and the kayaks are space.  The left bank of the river is straight and the right side is curvy.  The current in the stream is 186,000 mph, but because the kayak on right must navigate the curves, it is moving slower than the kayak on the left.  What happens?  Our “space” will twist as the kayak on the left moves faster than the kayak on right.

This one should be the most intuitive at all.  Imagine points A and B on either side of a mountain. Points A and B are the two ends of the light clock.  One car goes a steady 186,000 mph straight through a tunnel from point A to point B.  A second car goes a steady 186,000 mph around and over the mountain on a twisty road.  Obviously it takes the second car longer because the road is “warped”.  The more warped the road is the longer it will take to get from point A to point B.

So if it takes one light signal longer to go from point A to point B, than another light signal to get from point A to B when they are both moving at the same speed, what can we conclude?  Spacetime (like the road in the analogy) between points A and B is curvier for one light signal. The only reason it would take one light signal longer to move from point A to point B when it is moving the same speed as another light signal is because it must navigate more twists and turns. That's what causes Gravitational time dilation.  The deeper in the gravity field, the more warped spacetime is and the slower clocks will run because it has to navigate more twists and turns.  I’m running out of ways to explain it.

Please rephrase your question. Why should a non-force affect the motion of mass?

Not sure there is simpler way to rephrase it.  That is what I am asking you why should a non-force affect the motion of mass? You seem to think that gravity somehow effects the motion of "gravitational mass" differently than it does "inertial mass".

 

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 12, 2021, 10:54:35 PM »

This was already discussed in the rocket analogy that was discussed, as well as the water droplet analogy. When you accelerate into photons you perceive their sequence of events quicker. The spacetime warp is not needed.

If spacetime warp is not needed,why do you perceive events quicker? 


Maybe this will help.

Imagine that the vertical rod is 186,000 miles long and there is a light signal bouncing off a mirror at each end.  So each round trip from bottom to top and back to bottom is 2 seconds. Why does the moving clock click at exactly half the speed of the stationary clock?  The light is bouncing back and forth between the mirrors at the same rate, but the stationary clock makes two round trips and the moving clock only makes one.




So motion changes how time elapses.  It condenses the passage of time.  And what is another word for condensing something?  If I take a sheet regular size notebook paper and condense it, what do I have to do it? What is the difference between the space the light is moving through on the stationary clock and the space the light is moving through on the moving clock?

And you still didn't answer my question about how a non-force effects the motion of mass.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 10:27:00 PM »

Tom, I am curious as to what you think causes time dilation, if not spacetime warp.  Even gravitational time dilation is based it.  The closer you are to massive objects and the more massive the objects, the more spacetime is warped resulting in stronger gravity.  It’s odd, to say the least that you think that GTD somehow supports UA.  It's in direct contradiction to it.

Also, still waiting for an answer to my question on how mass can be effected by and/or resist a non-force.

86

Flat Earth Community / Re: On the Notion of Flat Earth Belief Growth

« on: April 11, 2021, 10:22:50 PM »

Although there’s also evidence that some people simply pretend to believe in a flat earth online for the lolz.

There's also money in it.  I don't think it's true of anyone on this site, but for many proponents, its just a scam.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 06:14:54 AM »

The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

Iceman, this seems like the type of question you would know the answer to...would tidal forces, both ocean and land cause the weight distribution of the earth to be constantly shifting?

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 12:03:29 AM »

Please, let us all hear you avoid directly answering the logical question poised above again.

.

No, they would not hit you at one drop per second.  The rate would depend on how fast you are moving toward the droplets.  And whatever the rate is, according your clock, it would be different according to a clock traveling with the water droplets.  Also, the water droplets would be length contracted.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 01:22:10 AM »

I have a question concerning your explanation.

Specifically, the issue of acceleration and relative velocity of two observers.

Are you supposing 1)the acceleration; and, 2) relative velocity: of the two observers is the same in this scenario?

I didn't mean to blow you off earlier, but at first I didn't understand your question.  Then I realized I had been sloppily using the word acceleration to mean motion. Shame on me. 

Anyway, SR deals only with inertial motion, not acceleration in its strict sense.  So no, the acceleration of the two objects can't be different because neither is accelerating.

Their velocities can be different though.  They can be moving at different constant speeds in different straight line directions.  The greater the difference in their velocities', the greater the time and space difference will be.

Does that answer your question?

EDIT: To clarify,  they must be moving in different straight lines and different constant speeds.  Otherwise the aren't moving relative to one another and the concept only applies to objects that are moving relative to one another.

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 01:14:44 AM »

So you won't consider a scenario in Newtonian space, and proclaim that you won't consider it because it doesn't exist? Sounds like avoidance to me.

It is clear from these types of responses that you know that this would work, and are trying to avoid admitting that.

Its clear from your question that you are very confused.  Space time warp existed in Newtonian space. Just because nobody was aware of doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I gave as direct answer as possible given the illogical premise of the question.  What part of "At no time in history would this experiment have different results" don't you understand?"

If the ancient Greeks had some reason to do it and figured how to do it using pebbles and sundials, they would have gotten the same results.  They would have been surprised and confused.  Modern scientists were not surprised (except maybe by the fact that they correctly predicted it) or confused because it was what they thought would happen.

Effects can exist and be observed without understanding the cause.

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 08:40:49 PM »

No. I am invoking a universe where SR and spacetime bending does not exist. Spacetime warping is impossible in this universe, because it is nonexistent, like the pre-relativistic concept of space.

In this space, would accelerating into a line of photons that are emitted one second apart cause them to seem to appear to arrive in a shorter time span than one second apart from each other, or not?

Your question makes no sense. What you are asking is essentially, if it didn't exist, would it still exist?

Just because we weren't aware of spacetime warping in "pre-relativistic" time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. There has been no time in history when that experiment could have been conducted and not have the same result.  Pre SR, we wouldn't have had an explanation for it, but the result would have been the same.

By your logic a compass wouldn't have worked until we figured out electromagnetism.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 07:27:39 PM »

If SR and space bending did not exist and this rocket scenario was occurring in the pre-relativity concept of corporeal space, would this time dilation effect occur?

A clock on the ceiling of the rocket is ticking and broadcasting a line of photons at a rate of one per second (or whatever rate). Would accelerating into that line of photons cause them to seem to speed up to the observer like in the analogy?

Yes or No?

Of course. If SR hadn't been developed yet, we just wouldn't understand why.

Experiments like this were designed to confirm SR.  Prior to SR they weren't the type of experiments anybody had a reason to do.  SR predicted time dilation and so scientists figured out ways to make objects accelerate relative to one another and measure time to see if there was any differences.

And there were differences.  Just like SR predicted. And not just any differences, but exactly the differences you would expect based on the math of curved space time.

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 06:17:13 PM »

Incorrect. It doesn't say that the scenario on the left hand side of the image is caused by Special Relativity or "spacetime bending". It clearly says that it occurs simply because the rocket is accelerating into the photons, causing time of the clock to appear to speed up.

IOW, it describes exactly what we’d expect to see if spacetime was warped by acceleration. Accelerating objects and differences in time.

You can’t always expect things to be explicitly stated and handed to you on a silver platter.  Sometimes you have to draw logical conclusions from the evidence.  If you came home with trash strewn about and last night’s leftovers all over the dog’s face, what conclusion would you draw? 

The fact that the clocks show two different times while accelerating is evidence that spacetime is warped...because that is exactly what we expect to happen if spacetime is warped...accelerating objects showing different times.

If you don’t think that is the logical conclusion, why not?

@action80...I’ll have to get back to you later.  Tom’s comment was easier to respond to and I want to think about how I respond to you so I don’t cause any confusion. Maybe later this evening.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 03:59:29 PM »

The quote and illustration I provided in the second post of this thread with the rocket accelerating into the line of photons of the clock shows how the effect of time dilation can be explained to occur from the act of acceleration of the rocket into the photons, without using any spacetime-bending explanations. Once again, if time dilation can be explained without the spacetime-bending, why do we need the spacetime-bending?

No it doesn’t and I explained why.  It plainly describes the bending of spacetime.

the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor.

That is a description of the warping of spacetime.  Time is moving at a different rate at the roof than on the floor.  That means spacetime is warped.  If the front of your car is moving at a faster rate than the tail end, your frame is bent.

The Equivalence Principle which postulates the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is not specifically tied to General Relativity. In fact, Einstein came up with the Equivalence Principle 8 years before he came up with GR (as mentioned in the PBS EP video). GR incorporates it. Newton and Galileo also had their own theories of equivalence to explain why bodies of different masses and substances fell at the same rate, long before Einstein was born.

No, we’ve been down this road before.  Einstein’s EP asserts that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing.  I quoted him saying that.  You didn’t address that.  I also suggested that if you accept the fact that gravity is not a force, then logically there can be no distinction gravitational mass and inertial mass.  If gravity is not a force it can’t effect the motion of mass.  Mass can’t respond to or resist a non-force. You never addressed that either.

So I’ll try another way.  If the guy in the spaceship who doesn’t know if he is accelerating or in gravitational field steps on a scale...how does he know if he is measuring his gravitational mass or inertial mass?

Of course Einstein was aware of the Newtonian and Galilean observations that all objects fall at the same rate.  What he came up with is a better explanation...or really just an explanation for it at all.  Prior it had just been regarded as a coincidence.  Which theory is better do you think? One that just chalks something up to being a coincidence or one that explains the coincidence?  Note in my OP I didn’t ask why GR is right or UA is wrong.  I asked why UA should be considered a better theory when UA leaves so many things unexplained or just a coincidence.

In such a theory, inertial mass and gravitational mass are not just accidentally numerically equal, they are ontologically identical. As a result, general relativity is far more exposed to falsification than Newtonian theory, which is to say, general relativity is a much stronger theory.

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath582/kmath582.htm

There is a physicist cited on the Signac Experiment page who states that light can be faster than c in the Sagnac and Wang Experiments. I don't see how it is clear that there is a universal speed limit of c when there are experiments which contradict that idea.

Saying that the speed of light can be increased or could be higher than c isn’t the same thing as saying it isn’t constant or more importantly, that matter can exceed the speed of light, whatever it is.  Can we add that to the list of unknowns?

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 06:28:51 AM »

What would be the point of explaining the time dilation that would occur in an accelerating rocket, where a clock on the ceiling runs fast, with SR's spacetime warping when time dilation is also explained through the non-SR example of the rocket accelerating into the photons?

The “accelerating rocket” excerpt you posted is special relativity.  The whole excerpt is essentially my argument.

Everything the author describes prior to “Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect” is describing the warping of spacetime due to SR.  If the clock on the roof has a different time than the clock on the floor, the spacetime inside the rocket has been warped due to the acceleration of the rocket.

Then the author gets into his explanation of GTD by introducing the EP.

“Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect”.  IOW, prior to this, the EP has not been taken into account, but once it is, the logical conclusion is that gravity causes the same effect as what was previously described (spacetime warp). 

Its exactly my argument.  The EP is what bridges SR and GR.  If you accept the EP, you can’t logically reject either one of them. Its like saying there’s a bridge between points a and b but points a and b don’t exist. If gravity is the equivalent of acceleration and acceleration induces warp of spacetime, then gravity induces the warp of spacetime.  Once the relationship between gravity and spacetime warp is established, its easy to explain why it appears that massive objects appear to attract one another.

The speed of light limit is a concept from SR. If we discard SR then there is no speed limit. Why should the universe have a "speed limit"? Is there any experimental evidence for that?

If you want to suggest that exceeding c is possible, go for it.  Keep in mind you would be explicitly acknowledging UA violates the most basic principle of known physics and it would be intellectually dishonest to try and defend it with known physics.  You’d need to change your wiki and admit UA results in the earth exceeding c and explain why we don’t observe effects prior to their cause occurring.  That’s the paradox that exceeding c would cause.

You appear to be referring to this:

http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf

Now I’m really confused.  Do you or don’t you agree that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable?  Jack seems to think you don’t.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 08, 2021, 10:00:27 PM »

@fisherman

"The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable."

Not really, but this is a common misconception.

They are, in fact, easily distinguishable :  tom has an excellent diagram showing this in a hanging, falling, and resting water balloon that, despite my best efforts, I couldn't find

Gravity does not equal acceleration.

Please do not let this diminish your happiness!

Jack, you don't believe that gravity and acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable and that's fine.  My question was directed to those that do believe it.  And whether or not it is actually true really isn't the point anyway.

The question is essentially, if you believe that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, why does it make sense, logically, to reject GR in favor of UA?

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 08, 2021, 01:22:38 AM »

It is my understanding that UA plays along with SR. Gravity is a force in UA, like gravity from stars and planets, but that's very faint. UA states the surface we are on has a negligible gravity due to mass and the rest is just acceleration from an undefined force, which keeps pushing this "special" plane since the dawn of time. But on other planets, like Mars, gravity works as Einstein says.

Gravity and special relativity didn't play well together when Einstein first introduced it. SR directly contradicted Newtonian gravity as an "instantaneous" force That's the reason Einstein worked so hard to come up with general relativity and it is the EP that allowed him to make gravity compatible with SR.

I'd have to think about it, but off the top of my head I can't think of any reason why UA would contradict SR.  In fact, it needs it to explain why the earth isn't accelerating at greater than c.  It's only when you start getting into the nature of gravity (general relativity)that the problems start.  SR doesn't really address that, not directly anyway.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 08, 2021, 01:14:01 AM »

That is not a step-by-step physical explanation. You are just saying that it happens. You can't explain how it happens, or show direct evidence that it happens. You can only say that it happens. Your description involves the assumption of "space-time", where acceleration "diverts energy to space", "causing time to slow down," in an ad-hoc untestable explanation which does not have fundamental experimentation behind it.

I explained exactly how it works.  As the relative velocity between two observers increase, how each perceives time and space becomes increasingly different and more distorted.  Perhaps this analogy will help.

Imagine a cylindrical carnival ride that is rotating faster and faster and you are pinned to the perimeter.

Now imagine there is another passenger in the center of the cylinder.  Every time the ride rotates, you will travel the full circumference of the cylinder, but the person in the middle hardly moves.   If the ride is rotating fast enough, the person in the middle will observe  you contract in length and your wristwatch running slower because your velocities are different. The faster the ride goes, the the person in the middle will watch you get shorter and shorter and your watch get slower and slower.  With the increased acceleration, the “spacetime” inside of the ride becomes more and more distorted.

How does acceleration "divert more energy to space than time" exactly? Why should that cause time to slow down? How does space "warp" and cause time to slow down when more acceleration energy is present exactly? You are introducing a lot of mechanistic questions there.

 It works the same way that the relative speed between directions changes when you change directions. (IOW, when your velocity changes and you are, by definition, accelerating)  I know that’s not very well put, so here’s another analogy.

 If you’re speeding along going directly north at 65 mph and then merge onto the highway going northeast,(you've changed direction so you are accelerating) the speed that is moving you north will decrease as some of it is diverted to move you east.  You are going slower in the north direction and covering less ground "northward" than you were before you merged.

Now think of “speed” as the energy available to move a car through spacetime, let’s call it 65 newtons just to keep things consistent. “Time” is the north direction and space is the “east” direction.  If it’s sitting still, according to my analogy, it would be the same as a car moving a steady 65 mph directly north.  65 newtons of energy are being expended to move the car through time (north). When it starts up and begins moving, some of those newtons will have to be diverted to move it through space (east). Let’s say 50 newtons of the energy will move it through time and 15 newtons of energy would be moving it through space.  As the car begins to move faster and faster through space, more newtons will be expended moving it through space and less dedicated to time.   Just like our car, the more it turns in an easterly direction , more of its speed is dedicated to moving east and less to north .  The more of its speed  that is dedicated to moving it east (space), the more ground it covers in the east direction  and the less “ground” it covers in the north direction (time).  Covering less “ground” in time means time is moving slower.

If the car’s speed keeps increasing, then eventually all of the energy will be dedicated to moving through space and time will stop.  Just like if a car keeps increasing its easterly direction, eventually all of its speed is moving it in an east direction and it is no longer going north.

Slowing of time due to acceleration has been experimentally proven plenty of times, but if you want to deny the validity of SR, that’s fine by me.  You might want to update your wiki, though and find another explanation as to why an earth constantly accelerating at 1g doesn’t exceed the speed of light. Or maybe we are moving faster than c.  After all, UA isn’t based on any known or accepted laws of physics.  I believe you said so yourself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/


https://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/strong/phy140/lecture32_01.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 07, 2021, 09:37:45 PM »

Your statement "accelerated motion warps spacetime" doesn't make much sense on its own. How is spacetime warped exactly? Can you describe it in a step-by-step physical manner instead of using it as a magic wand?

For someone who purports to have better insight into physics than every other actual physicist in the world, it seems like special relativity shouldn’t be something you would need explained to you.  But here goes anyway...highly simplified of course.

The essence of SR is that observers in relative motion to one another will have different perceptions of distance and time. Wristwatches worn by two different people in relative motion will move at different rates. Two people in motion relative to one another will not measure the same lengths using the same tape measure.  This is because if two people are moving relative to another, light takes longer to reach one person than the other.  Speed of light is constant, but it must travel different distances to reach each person.  The constant speed of light also effects the relativity of space because speed is distance divided by time.  If two observers don’t agree on speed or time, they aren’t going to agree on distance. Another related concept is that everything is always moving through time.  You can’t separate the two.  A parked car is moving through time only, but when it starts up and drives away, it also begins moving through space, so some of the energy directed to moving through time is diverted to moving it through space.  The faster it goes, more energy is diverted moving through space than time, so time begins to slow for the car.  It isn’t moving through time as fast as when it was parked.

This is essentially how acceleration “warps” spacetime.  The greater the relative velocity of the two observers, the more their observations of space and time will differ.  If the same spacetime is different for two different observers, it can be described as “warped” much the same way a piece of lumber is considered warped. If it doesn’t look straight and flat from every angle, it is warped.  If spacetime is experienced differently from different "angles" or frames of reference, it is warped.

That’s about as simple as I can make it.

Gravitational time dilation, in GR and time dilation in SR are two completely different concepts with different causes.(although they can occur at the same time, like with GPS satellites)  So as pretty as your illustrations are, they have nothing to do with how accelerated motion in SR warps space time.

100

Flat Earth Theory / My Happiest Thought

« on: April 07, 2021, 02:05:29 PM »

Ever since finding this site, I have had this nagging thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind relying on the equivalence principle to justify UA, but couldn’t  quite put my finger on it.

I wasn’t thinking about people falling off a roof, but it finally dawned on me.  Special Relativity tells us that accelerated motion warps spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time moves and objects will contract.  The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable.  The logical conclusion then is that gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Instead, the UA crowd concludes that the EP means there is some mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (and maybe, but maybe not, everything else.) upwards. 

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki that justifies this leap (no pun intended) in logic. Maybe if you took SR out of the equation, it would make some sense but that creates even more problems for UA.  Not to mention the fact that part of what makes the EP so important is that it serves a bridge between SR and GR so that SR is consistent with gravity.

Why should UA be considered a better theory for gravity when it doesn’t even logically follow from the very premise it is based on?  Not to mention the fact that it leaves so many questions unanswered that GR very elegantly solves.