Time ^ t8 | t7 . | . t6 . t5 | t4 | t3 . t2 . t1 | t0----P---Q------R
Each point of the continuous plotted line is an event
The train is at rest at P, during the intervals (t0-t1) at PQ during (t4-t5) and after t8 at R
The train moves and undergoes accelaration during the intervals (t2-t3) at during (t6-t7)
It is important to consider that each observer involved, should observe the same events and should draw the same plot.
When a force acts on body B in the x direction than body B will start to move in the x direction and the speed will increase, untill the force is removed. There after body B will continue in a straight line with a constant speed.
Fig 2.4 Two observed bodies and their inertial frames.Fig 2.4 shows two inertial frames.
The question is how is this speed defined/measured. In which frame ?
Fig 2.5 Two frames in standard configuration at time t.Fig 2.5 shows two inertial frames.
The question is how is this speed v defined/measured in the (x',y',z') frame. See below
|x = x' + vt
|y = y'
|z = z'
|t = t'
Time ^ t8 | t7 . t6 . t5 | t4 | t3 . t2 . t1 | 0-----P---Q----
Time ^ |A /B +3 | . | | / +2 | . | | / +1 | . | | / 0--------------
The problem is in the units of the time axis. The Time axis shows the time in days.
+1 is at day 1, +2 is at day 2 etc
The line A is simple because object A is supposed to be at rest.
Line B is much more complex. To draw this line you can send out each day a flash and monitor the reflection. When you send at t0 and you receive at t1 than the total duration of the signal is t1-t0. The maximum distance is at (t0+t1)/2 and the distance is (t1-t0)/2 * c. This calculation requires that the speed of light is c in both directions and that the line A is in "absolute" rest.
This paragraph shows 4 specific equations:
To observe the results select this link: VB Mercury numerical
The modified version Fig 15.13.1 shows 4 lightrays at t1,t2,t3 and t4. 'Each' path is bended.
|Frame of reference
|page 204, Ref 4
|page 198, Ref 2
To decide if events are simultaneous you need a coordinate system, or better a grid, with at equally spaced distances a clock. All the clocks should be synchronised.
In the next paragraph the concept one world view is introduced. The concept one world view means that at every moment of the physical existance of the universe all the objects in the universe have a specific state and all the events happening at that moment are simultaneous events. That means neither of these events, for example collisions between objects, can influence each other. To be more specific two specific collisions, involving 4 objects, which happened simultaneous can never influence each other. Event A can only influence Event B if event A happened before Event B.
Assuming we accept a one world view about the state of the universe:
The experiment should be performed in such a way that over a long period 'every hour' both t1 and t2 should be measured and t2 should be compared with a situation when the gravitational field has no influence.
Unfortunate that information is not supplied.
In a second part t2 should be compared with a theoretical value. For example GR or Newton's Law. Also that information is not supplied.
How ever there is a much more bassic problem. The Spahiro effect is bassicaly a physical effect and involves the behaviour of the path of a light ray very close to an object which also emits light. That means a lot of physical interaction can be involved which can influence this path. The question is in what respect both laws describe this possible interaction. One thing is for sure for both laws and that is that gravity influences the behaviour of the light path of the light ray. One thing that is not know and that is: to what extent light rays emitted by the Sun influence the artificial light rays emitted from earth and reflected by the planet. This is a physical issue.
My estimate is that the speed of the light ray will be effected in both directions, but they will cancel out, meaning that the overall influence will be less.
To assume that the speed of light is physical everywhere the same is wrong. To make things simple as part of mathematical considerations is okay. The most important part lies in the details of the actual measurements involved.