On 12/27/2021 2:25 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sun EM energy red shifts by gravity strength drop off
> leaving gravity. There is Pound Rebka heat/visible EM energy shift.
> Heat cools down traveling from its star to its planet...
> Why visible gets a red shift leaving gravity as well...
>

Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
running slow.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 12:39:23 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > > All your comments are complete irrelevant.
> >
> > Not at all. In the scenario under discussion, an ideal clock at the bottom of a tower measures the elapsed proper time (about one year) between the firings of two bullets upward from that location, and another ideal clock at the top of the tower measures the elapsed proper time between the arrivals of the bullets. Each bullet has a congruent trajectory in this stationary system. We find that the elapsed proper time at the top is greater than the elapsed proper time at the bottom, corresponding to the fact that, in terms of this stationary system, the rate dtau/dt of proper time (and hence the tick rate of ideal clocks, by definition) at the top is greater than at the bottom. This is covered in any good book on relativity. Is there something about this that you think is wrong or unclear?
>
> It is complete clear that you have not read the paper (no bullets, no irrelevancies of proper times).

Irrelevancies? The discussion here is about the elapsed proper times shown on ideal clocks at the bottom and top of a tower between the firings and arrivals (respectively) of two bullets fired one year apart. This shows that, in terms of the stationary foliation, the clock at the top runs at a faster rate (dtau/dt) than the clock at the bottom... thoroughly debunking all of your beliefs. Understand?

Also, I didn't ask you for a random list of things that you believe are clear, I asked if you think what I typed in my previous message was wrong or unclear. You didn't answer, so I'll assume (unless you say otherwise) that you agree what I said is both clear and correct. Good.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 4:51:34 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> En español, es "analiza"

En gallego y en chileno, será "analiza".

En argentino es "analizá".

No solo te vendistes al culto, sino también al lenguaje de los españoles, de quienes los salvamos.
Y terminaron vendiendose a los ingleses.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 12:52:28 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 2:25 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Sun EM energy red shifts by gravity strength drop off
> > leaving gravity. There is Pound Rebka heat/visible EM energy shift.
> > Heat cools down traveling from its star to its planet...
> > Why visible gets a red shift leaving gravity as well...
> >
> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
> running slow.

That's a well-known misconception, i.e., the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive, rather than two sides of the same coin. To understand this, note that you can do the same thing (showing the time dilation between two locations) with slow-moving material ballistic particles, and note that each particle slows down (loses energy) as it climbs out of the gravitational well, but this does *not* account for the time dilation in terms of the stationary system, because each successive particle (or wave crest) follows a congruent trajectory in terms of the stationary system. The difference can only be consistently represented by recognizing that the value of dtau/dt (where t is the stationary foliation) is greater at higher elevations. The misconception arises partly from the common misunderstanding of photons and the misinterpretation of the fundamental relation E = h nu.

On 12/27/2021 4:14 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 12:52:28 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/27/2021 2:25 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Sun EM energy red shifts by gravity strength drop off
>>> leaving gravity. There is Pound Rebka heat/visible EM energy shift.
>>> Heat cools down traveling from its star to its planet...
>>> Why visible gets a red shift leaving gravity as well...
>>>
>> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
>> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
>> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
>> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
>> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
>> running slow.
>
> That's a well-known misconception, i.e., the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive, rather than two sides of the same coin. To understand this, note that you can do the same thing (showing the time dilation between two locations) with slow-moving material ballistic particles, and note that each particle slows down (loses energy) as it climbs out of the gravitational well,

But light doesn't "slow down", it always moves at c.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:52:28 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
> running slow.

Well, this an ignorant comment even for a relativist, Moroney.

Einstein's jump to stardom was based on the LIE that frequncy of light isn't affected when star light passes
by a massive celestial body like the Sun!

Do you remember the fucking 1.75 arcsec deflection of star light passing just by the surface of the Sun?

ψ = 2 rS/RSun = 4GM/(c^2. RSun) ?

It doesn't affect any frequency of the composite light, so light spectra is received at Earth unaltered by the deflection.

How do you conciliate this with what you wrote, relativist?

El lunes, 27 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:59:29 UTC-3, Townes Olson escribió:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 12:39:23 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > > > All your comments are complete irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Not at all. In the scenario under discussion, an ideal clock at the bottom of a tower measures the elapsed proper time (about one year) between the firings of two bullets upward from that location, and another ideal clock at the top of the tower measures the elapsed proper time between the arrivals of the bullets. Each bullet has a congruent trajectory in this stationary system. We find that the elapsed proper time at the top is greater than the elapsed proper time at the bottom, corresponding to the fact that, in terms of this stationary system, the rate dtau/dt of proper time (and hence the tick rate of ideal clocks, by definition) at the top is greater than at the bottom. This is covered in any good book on relativity. Is there something about this that you think is wrong or unclear?
> >
> > It is complete clear that you have not read the paper (no bullets, no irrelevancies of proper times).
> Irrelevancies? The discussion here is about the elapsed proper times shown on ideal clocks at the bottom and top of a tower between the firings and arrivals (respectively) of two bullets fired one year apart. This shows that, in terms of the stationary foliation, the clock at the top runs at a faster rate (dtau/dt) than the clock at the bottom... thoroughly debunking all of your beliefs. Understand?
>

That is a lie. Tom's original text begins with:

"Consider two identical clocks at rest at different altitudes in a static
gravitational field, and an experiment to compare their tick rates via
electromagnetic (EM) signals between them. The source clock launches an
EM signal at each of its ticks, and the receiver clock receives those
signals and measures the time between signals. Sometimes the EM signal
is contained in an optical fiber, sometimes in free space; the same
analysis applies to both".

No bullets!!!

It is clear you have not read the experiment paper.

> Also, I didn't ask you for a random list of things that you believe are clear, I asked if you think what I typed in my previous message was wrong or unclear. You didn't answer, so I'll assume (unless you say otherwise) that you agree what I said is both clear and correct. Good.

If you read the paper, you would understand how the clocks elapsed times are compared. You somehow are unable to do that.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:35:19 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > That's a well-known misconception, i.e., the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive, rather than two sides of the same coin. To understand this, note that you can do the same thing (showing the time dilation between two locations) with slow-moving material ballistic particles, and note that each particle slows down (loses energy) as it climbs out of the gravitational well,
>
> But light doesn't "slow down", it always moves at c.

Well, that would be sufficient to debunk your claim, i.e., if the phase velocity was always c, and there was no difference in the rate of proper time, then there would be no redshift at all, but of course you are misunderstanding on multiple levels. First, the correct statement is that light propagates at c in terms of a local free-falling system of inertial coordinates, but in terms of the essentially unique stationary coordinates like the Schwarzschild coordinates the speed of light varies with location, and in fact it is slower at lower elevations, so the speed of a rising ray of light actually increases (in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates) as it rises.

Now, each wave crest follows the same profile of speeds, and hence each successive wave crest takes the same time to rise, regardless of how its speed changes along the way, so this does not contribute anything to the difference between the transmission interval and the reception interval. The only reason for the red shift is that, in terms of the stationary foliation, the rate of proper time at the higher elevation is greater than at the lower elevation. You can read about this in any good book on relativity.

On 12/27/2021 4:38 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:52:28 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
>> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
>> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
>> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
>> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
>> running slow.
>
> Well, this an ignorant comment even for a relativist, Moroney.
>
> Einstein's jump to stardom was based on the LIE that frequncy of light isn't affected when star light passes
> by a massive celestial body like the Sun!
>
> Do you remember the fucking 1.75 arcsec deflection of star light passing just by the surface of the Sun?
>
> ψ = 2 rS/RSun = 4GM/(c^2. RSun) ?
>
> It doesn't affect any frequency of the composite light, so light spectra is received at Earth unaltered by the deflection.
>
> How do you conciliate this with what you wrote, relativist?
>
Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree. I am NOT discussing
light passing by the sun and bending. I am discussing the light from the
sun (neutron star whatever) ORIGINATING from there on a one way climb
from a gravity well. GR DOES predict a frequency shift, and it is
exactly what is seen.

Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:52:28 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
>> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
>> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
>> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
>> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
>> running slow.
>
> Well, this an ignorant comment even for a relativist, Moroney.
>
> Einstein's jump to stardom was based on the LIE that frequncy of light isn't affected when star light passes
> by a massive celestial body like the Sun!
>
> Do you remember the fucking 1.75 arcsec deflection of star light passing just by the surface of the Sun?
>
> ψ = 2 rS/RSun = 4GM/(c^2. RSun) ?
>
> It doesn't affect any frequency of the composite light, so light spectra is received at Earth unaltered by the deflection.
>
> How do you conciliate this with what you wrote, relativist?

What makes you think these formula invalidates the existence of light
frequency shift?

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:55:37 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > The discussion here is about the elapsed proper times shown on ideal clocks at the bottom and top of a tower between the firings and arrivals (respectively) of two bullets fired one year apart. This shows that, in terms of the stationary foliation, the clock at the top runs at a faster rate (dtau/dt) than the clock at the bottom... thoroughly debunking all of your beliefs.
> >
> That is a lie. Tom's original text begins with:

Ah, I see the source of your confusion. You snipped the next sentence of Tom's post:

> ... this analysis also applies to the rate of machine gun bullets...

You see, we were discussing the bullets in another thread, and when Tom realized he couldn't explain the bullets scenario, he ran away and started this new thread, to obfuscate, but it was really a continuation of the discussion of the bullets, as you can see by the above statement. This has been explained repeatedly to Tom, and the bullets scenario is specifically to help him understand what is wrong with this EM signal analysis... which is equally senseless.

On Monday, 27 December 2021 at 21:52:28 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 2:25 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Sun EM energy red shifts by gravity strength drop off
> > leaving gravity. There is Pound Rebka heat/visible EM energy shift.
> > Heat cools down traveling from its star to its planet...
> > Why visible gets a red shift leaving gravity as well...
> >
> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
> running slow.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, 27 December 2021 at 22:35:19 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> But light doesn't "slow down", it always moves at c.

Even your idiot guru was unable to insist on this idiocy for
a long time and his GR shit had to reject it.

On December 25, Townes Olson wrote:
>> Consider two identical clocks at rest at different altitudes in a static
>> gravitational field, and an experiment to compare their tick rates via
>> electromagnetic (EM) signals between them.
>
> Again, the relations between the rates of proper time along separate
> worldlines don’t have anything specifically to do with electromagnetic signals.
> The comparison of rates of proper time along two given worldlines depends
> only on the temporal foliation of comparison.

This is storm in a teacup, as you agree on the experimental
outcomes, but sidetracked into fixations on EM waves.

Abstract away the specific implementation. A signal is
transmitted from source to destination. It must have a
component carrying information on time intervals seen
at the source. This component is modulated as it falls
through the grav. potential. Hence the receiver measures
a distorted version of the original.

The information might be contained in the tick intervals
(the period) of the EM source oscillator. Or it might be carried
in the intervals between bullets (the gun is an oscillator, with
period of one year), at tower top and bottom. Same same -

You're trying to drum up an argument where none exists.

---
Rich

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> A signal is transmitted from source to destination. It must have a
> component carrying information on time intervals seen at the source.

The example at hand is one bullet fired upward today from the bottom of a tower, and another identical bullet fired one year from now. Obviously these two bullets carry the information about the time interval between them, and the situation is stationary in terms of the usual Killing vector t, and we can measure with ideal clocks the interval at the bottom and the interval at the top. The rate of proper time is a quantity of the form dtau/dt where t is some specified time coordinate. The natural foliation is ordinarily the one corresponding to stationary coordinates, meaning the metric is independent of the time coordinate. For example, in the vicinity of a spherical gravitating mass, the time coordinate of the Schwarzschild coordinates is a Killing vector. This is what grown-up scientists are referring to when they discuss the different rates of proper time at different elevations and states of motion.

The point is, it's completely brain-dead to chant that "all clocks run at the same rate", as several nitwits here do, just as it is brain-dead to chant that "all objects are motionless". Comparing the velocities of two objects (zero and zero), each in terms of their own rest frames in which they are motionless, is the height of stupidity. Likewise comparing the rate of proper time along two world lines (one and one), each in terms of their own rest frames is idiotic. And this idiocy is not without consequences... it sends people like Ed Lake on endless quests to prove that scientists actually do say clocks run at different rates ... well, duh, of course they do. Grown-up scientists don't go around chanting idiotically that "all clocks run at the same rate", they talk about dtau/dt for each worldline in terms of stationary coordinates.

> This is storm in a teacup, as you agree on the experimental
> outcomes, but sidetracked into fixations on EM waves.

Suppose someone stipulates all the published experimental results regarding time dilation, but they claim that time dilation is not "real", so they always put it in quotation marks ("time dilation"), and they say it is due to invisible pink elephants spinning the dials of clocks with their trunks to match their social security numbers. Hey, they agree with all the experimental outcomes. What's to criticize? (Duh.)

The experimental outcomes are not at issue, what's at issue is the accurate explanation of the relativistic effects, and the misguided and frankly senseless statements that some participants here insist on repeating endlessly.. This has all been explained very thoroughly in this and the other thread.. If you're interested, you can read the threads.

> You're trying to drum up an argument where none exists.

Nope, I'm just pointing out the well-known facts of relativity theory, contradicting the repeated senseless statements by some participants here. If you have no interest in this, then you certainly aren't required to read or comment.

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 05:39:47 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:

> Nope, I'm just pointing out the well-known facts of relativity theory, contradicting the repeated senseless statements by some participants here. If you have no interest in this, then you certainly aren't required to read or comment.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

El lunes, 27 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:15:39 UTC-3, Townes Olson escribió:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:55:37 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > > The discussion here is about the elapsed proper times shown on ideal clocks at the bottom and top of a tower between the firings and arrivals (respectively) of two bullets fired one year apart. This shows that, in terms of the stationary foliation, the clock at the top runs at a faster rate (dtau/dt) than the clock at the bottom... thoroughly debunking all of your beliefs.
> > >
> > That is a lie. Tom's original text begins with:
> Ah, I see the source of your confusion. You snipped the next sentence of Tom's post:
>
> > ... this analysis also applies to the rate of machine gun bullets...
>
> You see, we were discussing the bullets in another thread, and when Tom realized he couldn't explain the bullets scenario, he ran away and started this new thread, to obfuscate, but it was really a continuation of the discussion of the bullets, as you can see by the above statement. This has been explained repeatedly to Tom, and the bullets scenario is specifically to help him understand what is wrong with this EM signal analysis... which is equally senseless.

It is clear who is talking nonsense here. You completely disregard that GR is a model and, for sure, a model is not the world. So physics experiments are continuously validating whether GR is valid or not. Atomic clocks (like the NIST-F1) have frequency uncertainties of the order of 10^-15 and optical clocks of the order of 10^-17. The clocks used in the Tokio tower experiment are working at a frequency uncertainty of the order of 10^-18.
These are real clocks used to measure time, but clearly they are not perfect clocks. To validate the gravitational redshift, predicted by GR, the Tokio tower experiment used two of these optical lattice clocks. One was located at the top of the tower, the other was located at the bottom of the tower (therefore separated by 450 meters). The gravitational redshift is given (to first order) at location 1 by:

(f2-f1)/f1 = (1 + α)(U2-U1)/c^2

where f2 is the clock frequency at location 2, f1 is the clock frequency at location 1 and (U2-U1) is the gravitational potential difference between locations 1 and 2. In order to compare the frequencies f1 and f2, an optical fibre link was used to transport the information from the top to the bottom of the tower.
α is the violation from GR. α=0 denotes the case when GR is valid.
The experiment result is that α=(1.4 +/- 9.1)x10^-5 meaning the experiment found "almost" the result predicted by GR.
The frequency difference (f2-f1), measure at the bottom of the tower, amounts to around 21.177 mHz (as shown in figure 3a of the paper).

These are facts!!!

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 15:26:07 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 27 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:15:39 UTC-3, Townes Olson escribió:
> > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:55:37 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > > > The discussion here is about the elapsed proper times shown on ideal clocks at the bottom and top of a tower between the firings and arrivals (respectively) of two bullets fired one year apart. This shows that, in terms of the stationary foliation, the clock at the top runs at a faster rate (dtau/dt) than the clock at the bottom... thoroughly debunking all of your beliefs.
> > > >
> > > That is a lie. Tom's original text begins with:
> > Ah, I see the source of your confusion. You snipped the next sentence of Tom's post:
> >
> > > ... this analysis also applies to the rate of machine gun bullets...
> >
> > You see, we were discussing the bullets in another thread, and when Tom realized he couldn't explain the bullets scenario, he ran away and started this new thread, to obfuscate, but it was really a continuation of the discussion of the bullets, as you can see by the above statement. This has been explained repeatedly to Tom, and the bullets scenario is specifically to help him understand what is wrong with this EM signal analysis... which is equally senseless.
> It is clear who is talking nonsense here. You completely disregard that GR is a model and, for sure, a model is not the world. So physics experiments are continuously validating whether GR is valid or not.

Sure, forbidden by your moronic religion TAI
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:52:28 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Amazingly, it appears that even Mitch understands this. Light from
>> close to a graviting source received distant from it is received at a
>> lower energy (and therefore lower frequency, E=hf). So a distant clock
>> will see a clock close to a neutron star as running slow, because of the
>> effect on the signal (light) from the source, not because the clock is
>> running slow.
>
> Well, this an ignorant comment even for a relativist, Moroney.
>
> Einstein's jump to stardom was based on the LIE that frequncy of light
> isn't affected when star light passes
> by a massive celestial body like the Sun!
>
> Do you remember the fucking 1.75 arcsec deflection of star light passing
> just by the surface of the Sun?
>
> ψ = 2 rS/RSun = 4GM/(c^2. RSun) ?
>
> It doesn't affect any frequency of the composite light, so light spectra
> is received at Earth unaltered by the deflection.

Well, since the light when received is again far away from the sun, it is
again at the same gravitational potential as it was when it was emitted.
What did you expect? That the light would sink into the gravitational well
of the sun, get shifted, and the frequency shift would just stick?

In your fervor to bash anything related to Einstein (I’m surprised you
aren’t calling anyone with first name Albert morally decadent), you make
the mistake of engaging mouth before starting brain.

>
> How do you conciliate this with what you wrote, relativist?
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 12/27/2021 5:01 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:35:19 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> That's a well-known misconception, i.e., the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive, rather than two sides of the same coin. To understand this, note that you can do the same thing (showing the time dilation between two locations) with slow-moving material ballistic particles, and note that each particle slows down (loses energy) as it climbs out of the gravitational well,
>>
>> But light doesn't "slow down", it always moves at c.
>
> Well, that would be sufficient to debunk your claim,

Meaning a comparison to ballistic particles slowing down is irrelevant.

Light doesn't slow down, instead it decreases in frequency/energy.

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 6:26:07 AM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> ... f2 is the clock frequency at location 2, f1 is the clock frequency at location 1...

In terms of the stationary coordinate time t, those frequencies are proportional to the rates of proper time along those world lines, dtau1/dt and dtau2/dt. The values of dtau1 and dtau2 are (by definition) the elapsed proper times indicated by ideal clocks moving along those worldlines.

(Of course, by definition, in terms of the time coordinates t1 and t2 of local free-fall coordinate systems S1 and S2 in which those world lines are respectively at rest, we have f1 = dtau1/dt1 = f2 = dtau1/dt2.)

> The frequency difference (f2-f1), measure at the bottom of the tower...

You have two entities (wave crests, if you like) that move from top to bottom on congruent trajectories, meaning that both wave crests take the same amount of coordinate time to make the journey. We can measure the elapsed proper time dtau1 at the top between their departures, and we can measure the elapsed proper time dtau2 at the bottom between their arrivals. Both of those have the same elapsed stationary coordinate time dt, but they have different elapsed proper times.

[Note to the cognitively challenged: "Measuring the elapsed time" can consist of constructing and calibrating a device to emit entities with that specific elapsed proper time.]

Now, measuring dtau2 between arrivals at the bottom doesn't tell you the time dilation, because you need to compare that with dtau1 between departures at the top. When you say that you are "measuring at the bottom", all you can measure is dtau2, so to make the comparison you are implicitly making use of knowledge of dtau1 from the top. See the bracketed note above.

The point is that the relativistic time dilation between top and bottom is not due to "something happening to the wavecrests during transit", it is due to the fact that dtau/dt at the top is greater than dtau/dt at the bottom.. (Remember, in terms of the stationary coordinates, the elapsed dt between departures equals the elapsed dt between arrivals.)

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:15:46 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 5:01 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:35:19 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> That's a well-known misconception, i.e., the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive, rather than two sides of the same coin. To understand this, note that you can do the same thing (showing the time dilation between two locations) with slow-moving material ballistic particles, and note that each particle slows down (loses energy) as it climbs out of the gravitational well,
> >>
> >> But light doesn't "slow down", it always moves at c.
> >
> > Well, that would be sufficient to debunk your claim,
>
> Meaning a comparison to ballistic particles slowing down is irrelevant.

Not at all. Relativistic time dilation has nothing uniquely to do with light. The rate of elapsed proper time, dtau/dt, at different potentials in terms of stationary coordinates can perfectly well be demonstrated with ballistic particles, and in many other mechanical ways, as has been explained to you repeatedly. Do you understand this?

> Light doesn't slow down...

Again, it doesn't matter whether the entities slow down or speed up, as long as the situation is stationary, i.e., each entity takes the same coordinate time to make the transit. This applies to pulses of light and to ballistic particles and to anything else that takes a consistent trajectory. And, again, in terms of the stationary coordinates, light actually *speeds up* as it climbs. Do you understand all this?

> instead it decreases in frequency/energy.

Again, the decrease in energy does not entail a change in the stationary coordinate period between the entities (wave crests or particles or whatever), and the relativistic change in frequency is due to the fact that dtau/dt is greater at higher elevations, as explained in detail previously. Understand?

On 12/26/21 1:37 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:31:30 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> I am NOT discussing "relations between the rates of proper time
>> along separate worldlines"...
>
> That is not true,

Yes it is -- READ WHAT I WROTE.

> you posted a diatribe yelling at all the scientists
> in the world who talk about the relations between the rates of proper
> time along separate worldlines, such as at the top and bottom of a
> tower, insisting (for the thousandth time) that they are WRONG (your
> caps) because (you insist) proper time advances at the same rate
> along every worldline.

But in GR proper time does advance at the same rate along every
worldline. Otherwise:
* one could not calculate it in GR by integrating the metric
along the worldline.
* the definition of the second would not apply to all Cs-133
clocks and would have to be changed to include specific
conditions.

You are implicitly not comparing clock tick rates, but rather clock tick
rates relative to some coordinate system -- THOSE ARE DIFFERENT.

> (Remember, the definition of an ideal clock
> is a device that reads proper time.)

Right. So the clock advances by 1 second for every elapsed second of its
proper time -- a Cs-133 clock always ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz,
independent of its location, gravitational potential, or motion.

> Your error has been explained to
> you countless times, and you always diverge into drivel about
> signals, blah blah, and when the simplest considerations debunking
> your beliefs are raised, you cover your ears and run away.

This is more fantasy of YOURS, due to not bothering to actually read
what I write. The physical situation in this thread is an experiment to
measure gravitational redshift of EM signals; it is NOT about "relations
between the rates of proper time along separate worldlines" -- this last
is YOUR fantasy, completely unrelated to what I have written in this thread.

>> The displacement 4-vector D is perfectly valid, as it is the
>> displacement between the launching of successive bullets, and D' is
>> the displacement between the reception of those bullets.
>
> No, that's insane. The bullets are fired one year apart,

You keep changing your "argument". Initially it was a machine gun, and
no machine gun has such an incredibly slow rate of fire. You incorrectly
claimed my calculation would not apply if successive bullets were not in
flight simultaneously. I responded with reference to a real machine gun
for which that objection does not hold, and I also explained that the
algorithm does not require bullets to be in flight together.

> and in the
> mean time that location has rotated around the earth's axis 365 times
> and the earth has circled the sun, etc., and the notion of assigning
> physical significance to the "displacement vector" between two
> consecutive firing events is preposterous.

Again you discuss YOUR OWN FANTASY, not what I wrote. I EXPLICITLY said
"the metric is static and the clocks are at rest relative to the
timelike Killing vector".

Within your fantasy, such an interval between bullets does not meet the
requirement I EXPLICITLY gave that "the time interval between [bullets]
is very much shorter than any other time scale".

> Once again, the clock at the top simply measures the elapsed proper
> time at the top between arrivals of consecutive bullets.

Sure. But to do that the clock must project the displacement 4-vector
between them onto itself. That's the genesis of the shift, for either EM
signals or bullets.

Apparently you have never actually performed such a calculation
correctly, you just hand-wave about "measuring elapsed proper time"
without actually THINKING about how that is done. Go back and read what
I wrote to see how it is done.

> Likewise
> the clock at the bottom measures the elapsed proper time at the
> bottom between successive firings (one year apart).

Sure. You are ignoring HOW the clocks perform such measurements, which
is the essence of how this is modeled in GR.

> Those elapsed
> times are different, because in terms of the essentially unique
> stationary coordinate system the rate of proper time at the top is
> faster than the rate at the bottom. If you agree with this, then all
> you need to do is stop denying it whenever anyone says it.

I agree with that, and have never denied that; my second calculation
explicitly shows this. What I object to is claiming "clocks tick at
different rates", implicitly discussing their INTRINSIC rates, not their
rates compared to a stationary coordinate system.

>> Sure there is underlying sense: I'm modeling the experiment I
>> described.
>
> Nope,

Yes. But you need to READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, rather than discussing
your personal fantasies.

>> It IS sensible to talk about "lab coordinates", because they are
>> the ones experimenters actually use.
>
> You failed to grasp the point. When measuring the relation between
> the rate of proper time at different elevations, you need to use a
> coordinate system that encompasses all the objects, so that is not a
> "lab coordinate system".

Sure. In my second calculation, which is the only one that uses
coordinates, the coordinates used do encompass both clocks, I did
precisely what you say here, yet you object BECAUSE YOU DID NOT READ
WHAT I WROTE.

> [... more of the same]

Challenge 1 to Olson: Go back and read what I wrote.
Discuss any shortcomings or errors you find.

Challenge 2 to Olson: complete your fantasy and describe
an experiment to compare tick rates of clocks following
different worldlines, and then model it in detail
comparable to what I did. Be general, and don't assume
the worldlines intersect. Be sure to actually compare
tick rates (not elapsed proper times). Let's see if you
can avoid the use of EM signals (or bullets).

Tom Roberts

On 12/27/21 10:55 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> Again, the elapsed proper time at the bottom of the tower occurs at
> the bottom of the tower, and the elapsed proper time at the top of
> the tower occurs at the top of the tower.

Sure. But the model I gave is NOT comparing elapsed proper times, it is
modeling gravitational redshift in GR -- PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE, or
just look at the subject line.

> In the scenario under
> discussion, an ideal clock at the bottom measures the elapsed proper
> time (at the bottom) between the firings of two bullets at the bottom
> (about one year), and another ideal clock at the top measures the
> elapsed proper time (at the top) between the arrivals of the bullets
> (at the top).

That is YOUR scenario, not mine. YOU are comparing elapsed proper times,
while I modeled gravitational redshift of EM signals.

> Each bullet has a congruent trajectory in this
> stationary system. We find that, in terms of this stationary system,
> dtau/dt at the top is greater than dtau/dt at the bottom.

Sure, when t is a timelike Killing vector and tau is the proper time of
a clock. But you want to do this on a rotating and orbiting earth, which
is not stationary and for which there is no timelike Killing vector. You
can't even keep straight your own scenario.

Moreover, you have never responded to the scenario I described and
modeled, because you have never actually read what I wrote.

Tom Roberts

On 12/27/21 10:39 PM, Townes Olson wrote:
> The example at hand is one bullet fired upward today from the bottom
> of a tower, and another identical bullet fired one year from now.

Given the assumptions I used in the modeling of gravitational redshift,
the calculation I gave applies to this, presuming the "one year" is
measured at the bottom of the tower. The clock at the top will measure
more than one year, and the calculation gives the numerical value
predicted by GR. But in the several variations of your scenario that you
cannot keep straight, the assumptions I gave do not hold.

> For example, in the vicinity of a spherical gravitating mass, the
> time coordinate of the Schwarzschild coordinates is a Killing vector.
> This is what grown-up scientists are referring to when they discuss
> the different rates of proper time at different elevations and states
> of motion.

Not really. You think "grown-up scientists" share your personal
misconceptions, and your misuse of English. They don't share those. In
particular, in this case "grown-up scientists" don't discuss "different
rates of proper time", they discuss "different rates of proper time
relative to the specified coordinates" (I did just that within the
second calculation of my original post in this thread).

Remedial English lesson:
The phrase "tick rate of clock A" refers to clock A only, and cannot
involve reference to anything else, such as Schw. coordinates. That
phrase can only refer to the intrinsic tick rate of the clock (aka
"proper tick rate of clock A").

That lesson applied to physics and clocks:
The proper tick rate of any clock is always the same, independent of its
location, gravitational potential, or motion. So a Cs-133 clock always
ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz and the ISO definition of the second holds
along any worldline.

> The point is, it's completely brain-dead to chant that "all clocks
> run at the same rate",

No, it makes perfect sense (for identical clocks). You are implicitly
adding some other coordinate system for comparison, which is not
included in the phrase you quote. When you add your own fantasies to
what people write, the fault is YOURS.

> [attempt to compare to] "all objects are motionless".

The tick rate (of a clock) is different from motion -- a clock's tick
rate is INTRINSIC, while its motion is not. Your analogy is flawed and
useless.

> Suppose someone stipulates all the published experimental results
> regarding time dilation, but they claim that time dilation is not
> "real", so they always put it in quotation marks ("time dilation"),

I suppose you mean me. This is just one more instance of you not reading
what I write and complaining about your own fantasies -- that is NOT AT
ALL why I use quotes around that phrase. I have said many times that I
put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because those
names are poor, and lead all too many people to misinterpret the actual
phenomena to which they refer.

> [...] This has all been explained very thoroughly in this and the
> other thread.

Not by you. You made a bunch of objections to your personal fantasy,
NONE of which applied to what I wrote.

Challenge 1 to Olson: Go back and read what I wrote.
Discuss any shortcomings or errors you find.

Challenge 2 to Olson: complete your fantasy and describe
an experiment to compare tick rates of clocks following
different worldlines, and then model it in detail
comparable to what I did. Be general, and don't assume
the worldlines intersect. Be sure to actually compare
tick rates (not elapsed proper times). Let's see if you
can avoid the use of EM signals (or bullets).
(You have made some attempts at this, without detail, and
using bullets.)

Tom Roberts