Markus Hanke
Registered Senior Member
There are no 'apparent' empirical measurements in relativity theory. Measurements are valid in all frames. Direct measurements made in local proper frames are invariant. Measurements made from remote coordinate frames are frame dependent not apparent. When physical measurement isn't technically possible or practical then we can substitute the theoretical prediction to fill the role of the remote measurement. We've confirmed this empirical relationship in many experiments. For example: The Hubble Space Telescope made this remote measurement which confirms the theoretical prediction that an object emitting a electromagnetic signal, while falling into a black hole, will exhibit a 'dying pulse train'.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/black-hole/2001/03/text/
Lets choose the HST again. Observing a black hole candidate to determine it's mass based on an object orbiting the black hole candidate. Lets model this using invariant tick rates in both the local proper frame of the HST and the local proper frame of the orbit.
dTau_remote orbit = (1-3M/r_remote orbit)^1/2 dt_remote bookkeeper / dTau_HST orbit = (1-3M/r_HST orbit)^1/2 dt_remote bookkeeper
The ratio
dTau_remote orbit/dTau_HST orbit = (1-3M/r_remote orbit)^1/2 / (1-3M/r_HST orbit)^1/2
We can also designate the HST orbit as a remote coordinate frame and find the ratio
dTau_remote orbit/dt_ remote bookkeeper = (1-3M/r_remote orbit)^1/2
The difference in tick rate between dTau_HST orbit and dt_bookkeeper is a nanosecond. So for this experiment we can use the clock in the local proper frame, of the HST, to time observations associated with events occurring in the local proper frame of r_remote orbit.
All empirical measurements are valid. None are apparent. The reason for the huge delta between local proper frame measurements [theoretical prediction] at the event horizon and the theoretical predictions associated with the remote bookkeeper coordinates is the local proper frame measurement are conducted in the tangent space that approximates a flat manifold while the global bookkeeper prediction takes into account the entire spacetime curvature over the natural path of the object falling from remote coordinates far away into the black hole. I think I know what you meant but introducing non scientific terms tend to confuse the uninitiated and 'gives nonsense fodder' to cranks.
Peace
Reading back over this, I agree with you that "apparent" was an unfortunate choice of words, brucep. My apologies. You are right to stress that all frames are equally valid, it is just that they don't necessarily agree; that is fine though, because in GR there is no requirement for them to do so.