1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 07:13:03 PM »

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

Incorrect. It is not only boats that float. Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination. Gravity being physically equivalent to upwards acceleration shows that a floating object can be continuously accelerated upwards without flopping around.

It is clear that larger floating objects are more stable. It is also clear that if a bacterium can't tip over a floating circular beer tray that we would also have difficulty tipping over something with a similar size ratio.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 05:59:24 PM »

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 11:30:47 PM »

Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?



Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 10:10:08 PM »

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 09:17:17 PM »

That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

As said, there are clearly ways that this can occur.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 07:29:45 PM »

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.

No. You are confused. This has nothing to do with a requirement of bending spacetime to make this happen.

You are in a long spacecraft under zero gravity. A line of water droplets is traveling from one end of the spaceship towards you, hitting you at a rate of 1 drop per second:



You then accelerate towards the drops. Will you experience the water droplets hitting you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second? Yes or No?



This scenario has nothing to do with bending spacetime.

This scenario has nothing to do with Einstein's theories.

This scenario replaces photons with water droplets. Will they hit you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second when you accelerate into them? YES OR NO?

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

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 12:51:20 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.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 07:29:59 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?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 07:07:09 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.

You are just saying "draw a logical conclusion." It is not logical that we must assume this to explain the effect. Why invoke a hidden untestable layer of reality when the effect can be described elsewise?

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?

Yes or No?

If yes, then there is no reason to invoke bending spacetime to explain it. If no, then why not?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 04:53:05 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.

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.

https://books.google.com/books?id=t8O-yylU0j0C&lpg=PA7&ots=zD8YCKNu7M&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION

  “ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, 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. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”



“ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”

While this example is using an Accelerating Rocket in corporeal space versus General Relativity, it is easy to see that it also applies to a comparison with the spacetime warping of Special Relativity which also purports to explain this effect. This effect simply doesn't need Special Relativity or space-time bending because we can explain it as the rocket accelerating into the photons and observing that they approach at an increasing rate, and that time from the clock seems to quicken.

Here is another quote:

The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity

https://books.google.com/books?id=VY5yDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA116&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this book its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner.

See the bolded above. It is not describing space-time warping to create this time dilating effect. It is describing a rocket accelerating into photons, exactly like the previous example. Spacetime manipulation is not needed for time dilation.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 02:12:38 PM »

Accelerating Rocket vs. SR

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?

Equivalence Principle

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.

Speed of Light Limit

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.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

José Croca
On p.306 of the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper (Archive) by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio), where we see:

  “  Since the realization of this [Sagnac] experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.



They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 09, 2021, 01:58:37 AM »

Accelerating Rocket vs. SR

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?

Experiments involving photon-emitting particles in a particle accelerator which accelerate towards the detector are approaching the detector at an accelerating rate, and any time dilation seen from the photons is no different than the accelerating rocket example. There are likely other explanations for those experiments than jumping to the conclusion that 'spacetime warped and caused time dilation'.

Accelerating Rocket vs. GR

If GR and the Equivalence Principle is explained as being physically identical in every way to the effects in an upwardly accelerating rocket, it is clear that it makes more sense that the Earth is accelerating upwards than the explanation that 'space is bending' in a hidden untestable layer of reality. GR only exists because the physical conclusion of an upwardly accelerating earth can't be explained with RE Theory.

Non-local effects are of questionable veracity.

UA and the Speed of Light Limit

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?

A look at the Sagnac Experiments shows that the speed of light is actually c +/- v, where v is the velocity of the moving emitter. The speed of light as a maximum velocity of c is the Special Relativity theoretical interpretation of the Michelson Morley Experiment which saw that Earth was motionless on a horizontal plane.

These theories were created to explain why the Earth seems to be horizontally motionless and accelerating upwards.

"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

You appear to be referring to this:

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

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations

« on: April 08, 2021, 01:23:28 AM »

Is there a difference in rates of in-person voter fraud between states with strict ID requirements and those without?

Certainty of getting caught is a deterrent, sure, but is there a problem?

Between 2000 and 2014 there was about 30 cases of voter impersonation over about 1 billion votes cast.  They don't do anything.

The above link I gave says that they don't bother pursuing it and that those statistics are consequently invalid.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations

« on: April 08, 2021, 01:03:05 AM »

How did you determine that it doesn't solve any problems? Clearly, if people know that they have to present ID, they are less likely to try to commit fraud.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-study-confirms-voter-id-laws-dont-hurt-election-turnout

Research strongly underscores the fact that the certainty of being caught is one of the biggest factors in deterring crime. Without an understanding of their deterrent value, it is impossible to measure the effectiveness of ID laws.

The reality is, election fraud often goes undetected; even when it is discovered, investigators and prosecutors often opt to take no action. In other words, no reliable data exist on the true scope or frequency of fraud, and Heritage’s database can’t be treated as a proxy. Statistical claims based on the database should be treated with great skepticism.

Nor can voter fraud prosecutions be used to measure the overall scope of fraud. That reasoning was roundly rejected by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a decision that the Supreme Court affirmed when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law. The 7th Circuit opinion noted:

"But the absence of prosecutions is explained by the endemic under-enforcement of minor criminal laws (minor as they appear to the public and prosecutors, at all events) and by the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling places, gives a name that is not his own, votes, and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name, and if someone did remember it, what would he do with the information? "

As the 7th Circuit said, such fraud “has a parallel to littering, another crime the perpetrators of which are almost impossible to catch.” 

When a lawbreaker is “almost impossible to catch,” states are faced with two options, according to the court: States may “impose a very severe criminal penalty” or “take preventative action, as Indiana had done by requiring a photo ID.”  And that law has been in place for more than a decade, with none of the problems critics predicted.

The researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research also failed to realize that a voter ID requirement can stop other types of fraud in addition to impersonation of another voter. It potentially may prevent individuals from voting using false and fictitious registrations; prevent noncitizens from casting ballots; catch out-of-state residents who are registered in multiple states; and make absentee ballot fraud harder to commit in states such as Kansas that have extended the ID requirement to absentee ballots.

This latest research confirms that states are justified in enacting voter ID laws to protect their electoral integrity. Such laws don’t deter eligible voters from registering and voting, and they do not disenfranchise minority voters.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations

« on: April 08, 2021, 12:35:59 AM »

You are just stating that these laws are bad and authoritarian without explaining why it is bad. Can you explain to us why Voter ID is so bad and authoritarian?

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations

« on: April 07, 2021, 11:54:14 PM »

This wasn't an issue as long as Republicans were winning elections. Now that the Democrats are winning in Georgia, there's some kind of problem they have to legislate.

I am pretty sure that they have been calling for "Voter ID" and similar things for many years regardless of whether R or D are in charge.

They have had a majority of state legislatures for years. Are they ineffective then? Or maybe many of them support Mitch McConnell’s notion of party before country and pass legislation that they think will get them more power?

Most of the Republican controlled states do have ID laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws_in_the_United_States

The Democrat controlled states do not appear to like requiring IDs to vote. I wonder why.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations

« on: April 07, 2021, 11:10:21 PM »

This wasn't an issue as long as Republicans were winning elections. Now that the Democrats are winning in Georgia, there's some kind of problem they have to legislate.

I am pretty sure that they have been calling for "Voter ID" and similar things for many years regardless of whether R or D are in charge.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 07, 2021, 09:46:50 PM »

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.

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.

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.

Is there a device we can buy to manipulate or see into spacetime to measure this energy, or is there a device which can manipulate and see into the fabric of space and how much it is bending? Or do we just have to take your word for it?

You can't show how we know that space is manipulated in this way. You can only claim this fanciful mechanism which has nearly zero direct supporting evidence. If you can't verify this spacetime mechanism by experiment, and can only claim it, then you may as well be invoking magic and mysticism to do this. Not to rain on your parade, but this mechanism is not as proven and demonstrated as other theories in science. We know how chemicals react because we can test them and manipulate them. The same can't be said about the manipulation of spacetime.

The scenario of being in an accelerating rocket and hitting a line of photons at an accelerating pace is a physical mechanism that we can understand from A to Z. What you proposed is no such explanation that we can understand with any clarity. It is not a physical mechanism because you can't test it or manipulate it by physical means. You can only say it. You can only invoke an allegedly hidden layer of reality that we can't touch or experiment with.

There is, indeed, basic fundamental experimentation showing that when you accelerate into objects they approach you at an accelerating pace. There is no basic fundamental experimentation which manipulates "space-time" to demonstrate the basis of your scenario, however.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations

« on: April 07, 2021, 09:21:40 PM »

They're being more blatant now than ever in their attempts at voter suppression

How is preventing candidates from influencing voters at non-partisan polling places just before they vote considered voter suppression?

I notice that you guys have already given up on the line of argumentation that campaigns should be allowed to do that.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 07, 2021, 07:20:57 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?

The effect of Time Dilation makes far more sense if you imagine a rocket accelerating:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t8O-yylU0j0C&lpg=PA7&ots=zD8YCKNu7M&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION

  “ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, 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. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”



“ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”

--

See the bolded above. If you imagine yourself accelerating into the line of oncoming photons it is apparent that physical acceleration would cause the time from the clock to appear to dilate. This is a physical explanation for why acceleration would cause time dilation, and also for why photons are blueshifted or redshifted when traveling horizontally upwards or downwards (Pound Rebka Experiment).

Can you give us a step-by-step physical explanation for how space-time is warped to do this?