"Ken S. Tucker" escreveu na mensagem
...
Elvis, I think you're being unfair.
...
The right analysis is that time dilatation is a consequence
of the speed of light and the DISTANCE travelled by light.
That is, time dilatation only is required for observations made
at distance, by means of light, like Einstein said.
Not the actual bull**** that follows because physicists only
have a stone hammer to work with.

Hi, Steve Wonder.

Our discussion has evolved to the transition
from SR to GR, in the weak field limit, that
was fairly much agreed upon in the early 20th
century, that have empirical support.

If the discussion has evolved to GR I didn't notice.
Where is it?

Wait, you're confused about the equivalence
principle and you confuse gravity with centrifugal
force?
I've a secret for you, gravity and centrifugal force
are not equivalent in nature. Gravity follows an
inverse SQUARED radius function. Centrifugal
follows an inverse LINEAR radius. Only for
stable orbits, where a body can be considered
to be in free-fall (no forces), one can make
such approximation.


Most of the fella's have given more than an
adequate airing of your misunderstandings, in
fact I'm surprised you haven't been flamed to
a crisp, so why throw insults?
Ken
BTW, before lecturing us, learn to ****ing
spell "dilation", that's the 2nd ****ing
time I've told you that!

"Dilatation" follows natural from my native language,
and I can't well myself. Besides that the spell checker
is happy with that word, so... (thanks).