"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Hgg7l.10252$D32.2723@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Mike wrote:
>> Imagine that
>> you are in an inertial frame, and a star zips by. The light emitted
>> from the star takes some time to reach you, so there is a small
>> discrepancy between where the star is, and where it appears to be.
>> Is the gravitation force on you in the direction that the star
>> actually is, or in the direction that the star appears to be?
>
> Let me assume:
> a) the star is also moving inertially
> b) all other objects are far enough away that their gravitation
> can be neglected
> c) the star is "small" (e.g. a few solar masses or less)
> d) the observer ("you") remains well outside the surface of the star
>
> Then a measurement of the gravitational acceleration from the star will
> point directly to its current position in your inertial frame. The light
> you observe from the star comes from its retarded position [#], of course.
>
> In Newtonian gravitation this is obvious (gravity is instantaneous). In GR
> this is due to a remarkable property of the fields: there is a velocity
> dependence that cancels the effect of the retardation (in this case the
> cancellation is exact, because of (a-d) above).
>
> [#] The light you observe at time t was emitted from the
> point on the star's trajectory that intersects your past
> lightcone for time t; this is necessarily earlier than t.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Dork Roberts proves yet again that he doesn't understand the Principle of
Relativity. The star as described doesn't move, you do.
|
|
Fumble Index | Original post & context: H8k7l.150385$Gh5.90455@newsfe16.ams2 |