So, the greater the gravitation, the slower the time, as the general relativity announced ?

Not so absolute! The greater the gravitational pull, the slower time is in some cases; the faster time is in others. General Relativity is a bit like a coin toss, a game of chance.

The greater the gravitation, the faster the pendulum clock moves, while the atomic clock moves slower. As far as the "speed of time passing" is concerned, gravitation has exactly two opposite effects, just as a coin has both sides. That is to say, whether it is Gravitational Time Dilation or gravitational.

Time Contraction depends on which type of mechanical device they choose in advance.

If you don't want to take chances, then, which one should you choose between pendulum clocks or atomic clocks?

Relativity resists absolute time and attaches importance to relative time, so all relative time is equal. Since relative time is equal, these two kinds of locks should also be equal. There is no reason to choose one type of clock to exclude another.

If a relative time is superior to another relative time, obviously, this is to create another absolute time in disguise, which is not what Relativity is willing to do.

Since two types of equal clocks lead to contradictory conclusions, then you have to accept two contradictory systems of relativity theory, corresponding to different types of clocks: the general relativity of pendulum clocks and the general relativity of atomic clocks; of gravitational time effects, one causes time dilation and the other causes time contraction. Both sets of theories are equally correct.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Page 69

On 5/4/23 2:26 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
> [... complete nonsense]

You seem to not understand that the entire earth is part of the
timekeeping mechanism of a pendulum clock. This makes your discussion
completely useless -- In "The greater the gravitation, the faster the
pendulum clock moves" you are simply changing the calibration of the
clock, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the "gravitational time
dilation" of GR.

Tom Roberts

Jack Liu wrote:
> So, the greater the gravitation, the slower the time, as the general
> relativity announced ?

No. The greater the spacetime curvature, the less proper time elapses,
provided the reference frame is at relative rest to the source of the curvature:

https://www.quora.com/profile/Thomas-Lahn/https-www-quora-com-What-affects-gravitational-time-dilation-large-masses-or-high-speeds-relative-to-those-masses-answ-1

(The greater the spacetime curvature according to GR, the greater also the
gravitational acceleration, too, according to NG. But that does not mean
that gravitation and time are directly related. “Gravitational time
dilation” is a /convenient misnomer/, like all “gravitational” terms in GR.)

> Not so absolute! The greater the gravitational pull, the slower time is
> in some cases; the faster time is in others. General Relativity is a bit
> like a coin toss, a game of chance.
No, you simply do not understand it (yet).

> The greater the gravitation, the faster the pendulum clock moves,

It does not matter how the clock works with which proper time is measured.
It applies to all clocks, that is, *proper* clocks. Clocks measure time,
but that does not mean that time is defined by what a clock shows.

In particular, a pendulum clock is based on gravitation, so it is not a
proper clock when the conditions for its proper operation are not met.

However, this also shows that gravitation is only an apparent force, just as
general relativity postulates. By switching to a different, free-falling
reference frame, i.e. a different coordinate system, you can make
gravitation disappear:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> However, this also shows that gravitation is only an apparent force, just as
> general relativity postulates.

The proper term is “_fictitious_ force” instead.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 5/4/23 2:26 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
> > [... complete nonsense]
>
> You seem to not understand that the entire earth is part of the
> timekeeping mechanism of a pendulum clock. This makes your discussion
> completely useless -- In "The greater the gravitation, the faster the
> pendulum clock moves" you are simply changing the calibration of the
> clock, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the "gravitational time
> dilation" of GR.

Yes indeed. A better way of making some physics out of it
is to use orbital motions as a clock rather than pendulums,
like Huygens and Roemer already did with the satellites of Jupiter.
(pendulum clocks are limited to stabilities of order 10^-8)

This raises the good physics question:
Is the time defined by atomic clocks the same time
as the time derived from tracking motions in the solar system?

This -is- of course a test of general relativity,
because it translates to the question how accurate
general relativity can predict the motions.
The answer so far is yes, to accuracies of about 10^-10 or 10^-11.

Jan

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 21:33:36 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/4/23 2:26 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
> > [... complete nonsense]
>
> You seem to not understand that the entire earth is part of the
> timekeeping mechanism of a pendulum clock. This makes your discussion
> completely useless -- In "The greater the gravitation, the faster the
> pendulum clock moves" you are simply changing the calibration of the
> clock, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the "gravitational time
> dilation" of GR.

Of course it's completely different; it is real,
not gedanken.

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 23:27:03 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> This raises the good physics question:
> Is the time defined by atomic clocks the same time
> as the time derived from tracking motions in the solar system?
>
> This -is- of course a test of general relativity,
> because it translates to the question how accurate
> general relativity can predict the motions.
> The answer so far is yes, to accuracies of about 10^-10 or 10^-11.

What a nonsensical lie. Even the predictions of
your Shit are that it isn't, and, of course, your
idiocy is local and time derived from tracking
motions in the solar system is not.

Jack Liu wrote:
>
> So, the greater the gravitation, the slower the time, as the general relativity announced ?
>
> Not so absolute! The greater the gravitational pull, the slower time is in some cases; the faster time is in others. General Relativity is a bit like a coin toss, a game of chance.
>
> The greater the gravitation, the faster the pendulum clock moves, while the atomic clock moves slower. As far as the "speed of time passing" is concerned, gravitation has exactly two opposite effects, just as a coin has both sides. That is to say, whether it is Gravitational Time Dilation or gravitational.
>
> Time Contraction depends on which type of mechanical device they choose in advance.
>
> If you don't want to take chances, then, which one should you choose between pendulum clocks or atomic clocks?
>
> Relativity resists absolute time and attaches importance to relative time, so all relative time is equal. Since relative time is equal, these two kinds of locks should also be equal. There is no reason to choose one type of clock to exclude another.
>
> If a relative time is superior to another relative time, obviously, this is to create another absolute time in disguise, which is not what Relativity is willing to do.
>
> Since two types of equal clocks lead to contradictory conclusions, then you have to accept two contradictory systems of relativity theory, corresponding to different types of clocks: the general relativity of pendulum clocks and the general relativity of atomic clocks; of gravitational time effects, one causes time dilation and the other causes time contraction. Both sets of theories are equally correct.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Page 69

It was a CucKoo-Clock where Albert Einstein
produced Relativity from...
(he wake up everyday and looked at the cuckoo clock out the window.)
(it drove him cuckoo)

let's re-create Einstein's Clock experiment.

He had two CucKoo-Clocks
and he noticed one CucKoo-Clock
CucKoo a little quicker
than the other
CucKoo-Clock.

In otherwords, the chicken
said CucKoo CucKoo CucKoo
before the other
CucKoo-Clock.

What caused the CucKoo-Clock
to CucKoo a minute later?

Your answer Liu Liu is gravitational pull????

So, you're sayin a CucKoo-Clock clock and a atomic clock show different times?

So, if you got a a CucKoo-Clock and a atomic clock, which clock 'shows' the correct time?? Einstein's clock or the bomb clock?

CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo...

What CucKoo time is it? It's five past CucKoo.

My CucKoo is slow.

CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoooooooooooooooooooooooooh.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 11:05:59 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jack Liu wrote:
> >
> > So, the greater the gravitation, the slower the time, as the general relativity announced ?
> >
> > Not so absolute! The greater the gravitational pull, the slower time is in some cases; the faster time is in others. General Relativity is a bit like a coin toss, a game of chance.
> >
> > The greater the gravitation, the faster the pendulum clock moves, while the atomic clock moves slower. As far as the "speed of time passing" is concerned, gravitation has exactly two opposite effects, just as a coin has both sides. That is to say, whether it is Gravitational Time Dilation or gravitational.
> >
> > Time Contraction depends on which type of mechanical device they choose in advance.
> >
> > If you don't want to take chances, then, which one should you choose between pendulum clocks or atomic clocks?
> >
> > Relativity resists absolute time and attaches importance to relative time, so all relative time is equal. Since relative time is equal, these two kinds of locks should also be equal. There is no reason to choose one type of clock to exclude another.
> >
> > If a relative time is superior to another relative time, obviously, this is to create another absolute time in disguise, which is not what Relativity is willing to do.
> >
> > Since two types of equal clocks lead to contradictory conclusions, then you have to accept two contradictory systems of relativity theory, corresponding to different types of clocks: the general relativity of pendulum clocks and the general relativity of atomic clocks; of gravitational time effects, one causes time dilation and the other causes time contraction. Both sets of theories are equally correct.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Page 69
>
>
>
> It was a CucKoo-Clock where Albert Einstein
> produced Relativity from...
> (he wake up everyday and looked at the cuckoo clock out the window.)
> (it drove him cuckoo)
>
> let's re-create Einstein's Clock experiment.
>
> He had two CucKoo-Clocks
> and he noticed one CucKoo-Clock
> CucKoo a little quicker
> than the other
> CucKoo-Clock.
>
>
> In otherwords, the chicken
> said CucKoo CucKoo CucKoo
> before the other
> CucKoo-Clock.
>
> What caused the CucKoo-Clock
> to CucKoo a minute later?
>
> Your answer Liu Liu is gravitational pull????
>
> So, you're sayin a CucKoo-Clock clock and a atomic clock show different times?
>
>
> So, if you got a a CucKoo-Clock and a atomic clock, which clock 'shows' the correct time?? Einstein's clock or the bomb clock?
>
>
> CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoo...
>
>
> What CucKoo time is it? It's five past CucKoo.
>
>
> My CucKoo is slow.
>
> CucKoo, CucKoo CucKoo, CucKoooooooooooooooooooooooooh.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

To Starmaker

You did make point by those cuckooooooooo clock.
Here lesson for Einstein: don't take reading of whatever clock as Time. Don't take the reading of experiment atom clock at different latitudes as Time to prove gravitational time effect .
Those kind of experiments are all trash, which might be able to prove clock slowing down but not time slowing down.

Jack

On May 4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> However, this also shows that gravitation is only an apparent force, just as
>> general relativity postulates.
>
> The proper term is “_fictitious_ force” instead.

Einstein cautioned against this extreme "gravity isn't a force"
meme, it's too much of an abstraction.

He noted that iron is heavy -

--
Rich

Einstein general relativity (1916) is based on Maxwell's equations that are not gravitational. And this shit about gravitational wave and time is justify horse shit but more dumb fucks cannot tell the difference.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> ... The greater the spacetime curvature, the less proper time elapses,
> provided the reference frame is at relative rest to the source of the curvature:

Spacetime curvature?

I present to you a thought experiment.
Consider a spherically symmetric, hollow shell.

It is generally agreed that Newton's Shell theorem extends
to the general relativistic case, although I note that there
appears to be some debate on the proper application of
Birkhoff's theorem in this analysis, so that I do not do the
lazy thing and provide a wiki link. See
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/156827855.pdf

Regardless, the metric in the interior volume should be just
flat Minkowski space. Compare the elapse of proper time
within the shell to a point at infinite distance from the shell.

On 5/7/23 2:22 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> ... The greater the spacetime curvature, the less proper time
>> elapses, provided the reference frame is at relative rest to the
>> source of the curvature:
>
> Spacetime curvature? I present to you a thought experiment. Consider
> a spherically symmetric, hollow shell. [...] the metric in the
> interior volume should be just flat Minkowski space. Compare the
> elapse of proper time within the shell to a point at infinite
> distance from the shell.

This is just one more example of how GR is complicated and subtle. There
are VERY few "sound bites" that are actually true about GR. Indeed the
only one that comes to mind that I know to be true is: "SR is the local
limit of GR", and even this one comes with the caveat "at all regular
points of the manifold". (The caveat is required for the limit to exist.)

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:27:48 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/7/23 2:22 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> ... The greater the spacetime curvature, the less proper time
> >> elapses, provided the reference frame is at relative rest to the
> >> source of the curvature:
> >
> > Spacetime curvature? I present to you a thought experiment. Consider
> > a spherically symmetric, hollow shell. [...] the metric in the
> > interior volume should be just flat Minkowski space. Compare the
> > elapse of proper time within the shell to a point at infinite
> > distance from the shell.
> This is just one more example of how GR is complicated and subtle.

Not quite, it's just some inconsistent mumble
of mystic maniacs.

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/7/23 2:22 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> ... The greater the spacetime curvature, the less proper time
> >> elapses, provided the reference frame is at relative rest to the
> >> source of the curvature:
> >
> > Spacetime curvature? I present to you a thought experiment. Consider
> > a spherically symmetric, hollow shell. [...] the metric in the
> > interior volume should be just flat Minkowski space. Compare the
> > elapse of proper time within the shell to a point at infinite
> > distance from the shell.
> This is just one more example of how GR is complicated and subtle. There
> are VERY few "sound bites" that are actually true about GR. Indeed the
> only one that comes to mind that I know to be true is: "SR is the local
> limit of GR", and even this one comes with the caveat "at all regular
> points of the manifold". (The caveat is required for the limit to exist.)

A number of years ago, while I was *slowly* working my way
through D'Inverno, I came across this 2012 paper claiming that
Birkhoff's theorem has frequently been misapplied.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4428

Critiquing this paper is *far beyond my pay grade*, but if
correct, I would have expected that it should have been cited
rather frequently.

However, in the years that follow, I do not see any papers
refuting the Zhang and Xi analysis, and only a handful of papers
that take their analysis seriously.

The paper that I had cited earlier affirms the points made in
Zhang and Xi: "As pointed out in [44], Birkhoff’s theorem is
often used to support the common belief that in a vacuum, the
gravitational field is only affected by the interior mass. We
note that that this is incorrect."

Do you have any take on this? Thanks in advance!