zztop

Senior Members
  • Content count

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

zztop last won the day on February 19

zztop had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About zztop

  • Rank
    Baryon

Recent Profile Visitors

1517 profile views
  1. I wish I could give you +10. The way it stands, I could only give you +1. A few notes: 1. It is sufficient to do the analysis for half trip only. At the half trip, the travelling twin has clocked 3.46 and the stay at home twin has clocked 4. After that, symmetry takes over. 2. If one wants to take acceleration into account, for a more realistic analysis, I wrote these two sections for wiki long ago. The perspective of the travelling twin is most interesting.
  2. What do you mean "complementary"? The question doesn't make sense. GR defaults to Newtonian mechanics in the limit. This is well known It causes internal strain. It is not an observer dependent artifact. I already explained that this is a misleading, sloppy, unfortunate term used by Suskind.
  3. It teaches you that the temporal distance between two endpoints of a rod increases as the radial coordinate decreases. This means that the rod gets elongated. As I already mentioned, one gets a similar (but not identical) result by using Newtonian mechanics.
  4. Yes, I did. You need to be able to follow the proof.
  5. No, it is no longer true in 4-space but this is not what he was talking about. Please do not encourage the troll.
  6. I am not talking about you. No, my proof is exact, doesn't use any "simplification", there are no "curlies". I wasn't talking about you.
  7. Events and positions are two different things. Get your facts straight.
  8. Elongation exists for ANY BH (it exists for any radial fall towards a gravitating body). The effect can be shown not only with the GR formalism but also with the Newtonian one. The amount of elongation is related to the Schwarzschild radius (which is related to the gravitating body mass but [math]r_s[/math] is a more elegant way of calculating). I already posted the exact proof. Once again, I want to thank all the small - minded people that keep downvoting my posts. It gives a good tally of all the people that fail to understand the subject. If you do not understand , just ask, I am more than happy to explain.
  9. You need o stop posting rubbish and trying to pass it as science. What I posted is textbook science.
  10. An observer co-moving with the cube will not measure ANY length contraction, to this observer the cube will show no change. A stationary observer will measure the cube (and its markings) contracted in the direction of motion. The same stationary observer as above will "see" the cube rotated about an axis perpendicular on the direction of motion (see the Terrell-Penrose effect). So, the issue is quite complex and depends on: -the motion between cube and observer -whether we are talking about "measuring" or "seeing"
  11. repeating the same crank claims doesn't make them true
  12. I already posted it, u need to click on the link. "Pancaking" it is not illustrative of what happens (this is the term Suskind used) , elongation is much more appropriate. Based on the above, it is clear that you do not understand GR, the different parts of the body are experiencing different accelerations (both in terms of direction and in terms of value). Hence, the "spaghettification" and the "elongation" effects. If some of you spent as much time at dancing around the issue and posting (incorrect) prose as studying GR, you would have figured it out. None of you posted one equation. None.
  13. Yes, it is a simple proof that none of you was able to produce. It also happens to be correct Nothing to do with the subject being discussed, proving that you do not understand the subject, contrary to your claims. Precisely what some of you did (in addition, you repeatedly resorted to ad-hominems). Thank you for making my point.
  14. Correct. This effect is not what my proof is about, My proof shows the elongation in the radial direction. I want to thank all the that keep downvoting my posts, they demonstrate the mentality of this forum. Not worth wasting my time.
  15. Has nothing to do with force, there is no such thing a gravitational gorce in GR. It is an intrinsic property of radial motion in a gravitational field .