[summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]

General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
It also predicts that clocks at different places,
and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
-when compared with each other-.
It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.

According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
so derivable from the metric tensor.
Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.

Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.

Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
This is of immense practical importance,
because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
(on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)

OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
(by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)

If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
there should be an effect of geographical latitude
on the rate of clocks.
This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.

The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
is a misconception without basis in observed fact,

Jan

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 12:00:54 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
>
> General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> -when compared with each other-.
> It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
>
> According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> so derivable from the metric tensor.
> Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
>
> Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
>
> Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> This is of immense practical importance,
> because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
>
> OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
>
> If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> on the rate of clocks.
> This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
>
> The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
>
> Jan

There is different rotation that will slow time jan.
Gravity will slow down time. Einstein was right...
on both accounts.

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 12:00:54?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> >
> > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > -when compared with each other-.
> > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> >
> > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> >
> > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> >
> > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > This is of immense practical importance,
> > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> >
> > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> >
> > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > on the rate of clocks.
> > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> >
> > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> >
> > Jan
>
> There is different rotation that will slow time jan.
> Gravity will slow down time. Einstein was right...
> on both accounts.

Einstein survives even your interpretations...

Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run is a
>> > misconception without basis in observed fact, Jan
>>
>> There is different rotation that will slow time jan. Gravity will slow
>> down time. Einstein was right... on both accounts.
>
> Einstein survives even your interpretations... Jan

here's 𝗮_𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁. At least a one with brain.

𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗱𝗶𝗲,_𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸_𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆
“History will not look kindly” on leaders who needlessly sacrifice their
troops, the Tesla CEO has said
https://r%74.com/news/587045-musk-zelensky-advice-counteroffensive/

The average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 42. The "flower" of their
youth is already dead.

Nothing about the current holocaust in Palestine?

True, but Zelensky was never the real leader. Leaders were 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗮 and
𝗕𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗮𝗻. And 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗳𝘂𝗸𝗮 and so on.

Beyond discussion Zellensky is a criminal and also those who pushed him
(USA)

i read this morning Zelensky has little control over the armed forces.

It doesn't really matter - Zelenskyy has $1 billion in his bank & he
couldn't give a flying poooop about how many Ukrainians most die, to keep
him in control.

Zelensky will send Musk a bottle of Whiskey with drinking glasses that
look like grenades🤣🤣🤣🤣

A technology gatekeeper giving advise to a defeated neo-nazi. That
conversation should go well lol.

"Zelensky must avoid needlessly sending young Ukrainians to be
slaughtered" I believe zelensky is one step ahead of him. He is sending
𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 now!

On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
>
> General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> -when compared with each other-.
> It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
>
> According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> so derivable from the metric tensor.
> Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
>
> Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
>
> Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> This is of immense practical importance,
> because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
>
> OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
>
> If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> on the rate of clocks.
> This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
>
> The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
>

A desperately misguided post from JJ.
You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
in a classical model “little g” is acceleration only. Not force.
And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
calculated using r.
Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in “little g”.
Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
acceleration = force.
And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
(Notice the r of Laplace’s gravitational potential and Newton’s scalar
field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> >
> > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > -when compared with each other-.
> > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> >
> > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> >
> > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> >
> > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > This is of immense practical importance,
> > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> >
> > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> >
> > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > on the rate of clocks.
> > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> >
> > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> >
>
> A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> calculated using r.

Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
to situations with spherical symmetry.

So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
where spherical symmetry does not hold.
Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.

> Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> acceleration = force.
> And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
> gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
> And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.

Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
nor a surface of constant g,

Jan

On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 21:00:54 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
>
> General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> -when compared with each other-.

Your fellow idiot Tom could explain you your Shit
doesn't predict it at all.

> OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,

JJ, poor halfbrain, don't you even know that
your idiot guru has refuted the force of gravirty?
The ignorance of relativistic morons keep amazing
me after all these years.

On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > >
> > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > > -when compared with each other-.
> > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > >
> > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > >
> > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > >
> > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > >
> > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > >
> > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > >
> > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > >
> >
> > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > calculated using r.
> Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.

‘Sound advice’ ? That’s a joke considering your ‘sound advice’
consists of telling me to ignore the facts , and pretend that
acceleration=force.

> You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> to situations with spherical symmetry.
>
> So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.

You seem to contradict yourself here. Below, dont you suggest
that it doesn’t matter where on the sphere one is,.. calculations
using r of potential always give the same constant tick rate?

> Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > Seeing as anyone except a profound idiot would think
> > acceleration = force.
> > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
> > gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
> > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> wrt each other.

I haven’t seen this reference before but I assume by “on
the geoid” you mean *all clocks at the earths surface*?

> Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> nor a surface of constant g,

Im not familiar with this particular information you cite, but
it makes sense that where both classical and GR calculate
tick rates with r they would show constant rates regardless
of local mass distributions in the earth. Because to calculate
using r, in the various formulae for classical or GR one always
uses *total mass* of the planet.
Not local mass.
So regardless of where on the geoid you are, as long as you
are on the surface...the WHOLE mass of earth is pulling on you.
And the total mass is constant regardless of your location
on the surface of the planet.

On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > >
> > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > > -when compared with each other-.
> > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > >
> > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > >
> > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > >
> > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > >
> > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > >
> > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > >
> > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > >
> >
> > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > calculated using r.
> Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> to situations with spherical symmetry.
>
> So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > acceleration = force.
> > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
> > gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
> > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> nor a surface of constant g,
>
A straw man argument if ever you make.
Yes I’ve looked at your ‘geoid’ now and how it varies slightly by about 200m
relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r distance doesn’t
exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense. Splitting hairs though
on your part to pretend somehow this rules out a classical model
which uses r. I notice you didn’t actually specify why it would.
In fact it doesn’t rule out in any way a classical model
any more than it would rule out GR.
Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
*total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
(And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > >
> > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > > > -when compared with each other-.
> > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > >
> > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > > > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > >
> > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > >
> > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > >
> > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > >
> > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > >
> > >
> > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > calculated using r.
> > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> >
> > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > acceleration = force.
> > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
> > > gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
> > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > nor a surface of constant g,
> >
> A straw man argument if ever you make.
> Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by about 200m
> relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r distance doesn't
> exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense. Splitting hairs though
> on your part to pretend somehow this rules out a classical model
> which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify why it would.
> In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> any more than it would rule out GR.
> Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)

So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
Newtonian potential.
So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
(due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
don't matter for what follows.

Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
potential = constant
On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
potential = same constant
On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.

The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.

What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
and if you can by how much,

Jan

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > >
> > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different rates,
> > > > > -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely kinematic,
> > > > > so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > >
> > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > calculated using r.
> > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > >
> > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace called
> > > > gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a scalar field.
> > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > > > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > >
> > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by about 200m
> > relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r distance doesn't
> > exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense. Splitting hairs though
> > on your part to pretend somehow this rules out a classical model
> > which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify why it would.
> > In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> Newtonian potential.
> So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> don't matter for what follows.
>
> Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> potential = constant
> On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> potential = same constant
> On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
>
> The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
>
> What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> and if you can by how much,
>

If you tried reading my posts you wouldn’t be pretending I said the force of
gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
That’s r^2 and it’s called acceleration. You don’t seem to know that m/s^2
is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the force of
gravity is modelled with GM/r.
And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want to split hairs
the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters. Which is why
very accurate measurements of clock rates will show constant rates at the
surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But that’s still consistent with a classical model
as much as with GR.

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > > > > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > >
> > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > Newtonian potential.
> > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > don't matter for what follows.
> >
> > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > potential = constant
> > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > potential = same constant
> > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> >
> > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> >
> > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > and if you can by how much,
> >
>
> If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the force of
> gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.

Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.

> That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the force of
> gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want to
> split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters. Which is
> why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show constant rates at
> the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But that's still consistent
> with a classical model as much as with GR.

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force..
> > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > >
> > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > > > > > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > >
> > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense..
> > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > > > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > > > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > > > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > Newtonian potential.
> > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > don't matter for what follows.
> > >
> > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > potential = constant
> > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > potential = same constant
> > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > >
> > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > >
> > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > and if you can by how much,
> > >
> >
> > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the force of
> > gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the force of
> > gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want to
> > split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters. Which is
> > why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show constant rates at
> > the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But that's still consistent
> > with a classical model as much as with GR.
> So you have nothing to say,
> beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
>
> Jan

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 14:30:18 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> and if you can by how much,

How about - it depends what clocks?

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 15:08:45 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands falsified.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force..
> > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about your r,
> > > > > and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > >
> > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and Newton's scalar
> > > > > > field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of little g.)
> > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > >
> > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense..
> > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume *exactly* the
> > > > *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be *absolutely* accurate
> > > > the geoid surface has to be used. Not the actual distance r.
> > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that
> > > > generally, the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > Newtonian potential.
> > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > don't matter for what follows.
> > >
> > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > potential = constant
> > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > potential = same constant
> > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > >
> > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > >
> > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > and if you can by how much,
> > >
> >
> > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the force of
> > gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the force of
> > gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want to
> > split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters. Which is
> > why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show constant rates at
> > the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But that's still consistent
> > with a classical model as much as with GR.
> So you have nothing to say,
> beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
>
I suppose there isn’t much more to say to a person such as yourself who
thinks that force=acceleration.

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands
> > > > > > > > falsified.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about
> > > > > > your r, and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and
> > > > > > > Newton's scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of
> > > > > > > little g.)
> > > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > > >
> > > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume
> > > > > *exactly* the *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be
> > > > > *absolutely* accurate the geoid surface has to be used. Not the
> > > > > actual distance r.
> > > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that generally,
> > > > > the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > > Newtonian potential.
> > > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > > don't matter for what follows.
> > > >
> > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > > potential = constant
> > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > potential = same constant
> > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > > >
> > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > >
> > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > > and if you can by how much,
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the
> > > force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the
> > > force of gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want
> > > to split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters.
> > > Which is why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show
> > > constant rates at the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But
> > > that's still consistent with a classical model as much as with GR.
> > So you have nothing to say,
> > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> >
> > Jan
>
> "... a right answer".

Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 15:08:45 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Lou wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about
> > > > > > your r, and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and
> > > > > > > Newton's scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of
> > > > > > > little g.)
> > > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > > >
> > > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume
> > > > > *exactly* the *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be
> > > > > *absolutely* accurate the geoid surface has to be used. Not the
> > > > > actual distance r.
> > > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that generally,
> > > > > the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > > Newtonian potential.
> > > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > > don't matter for what follows.
> > > >
> > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > > potential = constant
> > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > potential = same constant
> > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > > >
> > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > >
> > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > > and if you can by how much,
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the
> > > force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want to
> > > split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters. Which is
> > > why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show constant rates at
> > > the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But that's still consistent
> > > with a classical model as much as with GR.
> > So you have nothing to say,
> > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> >
> I suppose there isn't much more to say to a person such as yourself who
> thinks that force=acceleration.

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:08:57 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > > > This is not observed to be the case, so this idea stands
> > > > > > > > > falsified.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about
> > > > > > > your r, and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and
> > > > > > > > Newton's scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of
> > > > > > > > little g.)
> > > > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume
> > > > > > *exactly* the *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be
> > > > > > *absolutely* accurate the geoid surface has to be used. Not the
> > > > > > actual distance r.
> > > > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that generally,
> > > > > > the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > > > Newtonian potential.
> > > > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > > > don't matter for what follows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > > > potential = constant
> > > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > > potential = same constant
> > > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid..
> > > > >
> > > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > > > and if you can by how much,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the
> > > > force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > > > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the
> > > > force of gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want
> > > > to split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters.
> > > > Which is why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show
> > > > constant rates at the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But
> > > > that's still consistent with a classical model as much as with GR.
> > > So you have nothing to say,
> > > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > "... a right answer".
> There is only one,
>
> Jan

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:08:57?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> > > > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g >
> > > > > > average, potential = constant
> > > > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > > > potential = same constant
> > > > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three
> > > > > > places? No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same, and
> > > > > > if you can by how much,
> > > > >
> > > > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said
> > > > > the force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > > > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know
> > > > > that m/s^2 is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > > > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the
> > > > > force of gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > > > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you
> > > > > want to split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200
> > > > > meters. Which is why very accurate measurements of clock rates
> > > > > will show constant rates at the surface of the geoid only. And not
> > > > > to r. But that's still consistent with a classical model as much
> > > > > as with GR.
> > > > So you have nothing to say,
> > > > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > "... a right answer".
> > There is only one,
> >
> > Jan
>
> There's only one metric? How about when there are three?

One geoid, and one right answer, not one metric.

> What about when normed-spaces aren't metric spaces and vice-versa?
>
> If boost addition is part of GR, then it has to be setup to be
> that the geodesy is always instantaneously evaluated everywhere.

No prolem, the whole idea applies in the Newtonian approximation
to GR anyway. (so v^2 << c^2)

Jan

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 20:08:58 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 15:08:45 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 20:47:35 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Lou wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 20:00:54 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > [summary: gravity and clock rates for misled kiddies]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > General relativity predicts that all freely falling clocks
> > > > > > > > > will run at their own inherent rate. [by postulate]
> > > > > > > > > It also predicts that clocks at different places,
> > > > > > > > > and with different velocities will be seen to run at different
> > > > > > > > > rates, -when compared with each other-.
> > > > > > > > > It also predicts that accelerations do not affect clock rates,
> > > > > > > > > so the results can be extended to non-inertial clocks,
> > > > > > > > > such as clocks at rest at different altitudes on Earth.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to general relativity all clock effects are purely
> > > > > > > > > kinematic, so derivable from the metric tensor.
> > > > > > > > > Doing the sums for weak fields results in velocity effects
> > > > > > > > > being given by Lorentz factors, and 'gravitational' effects
> > > > > > > > > being given by the variations in Newtonian potential.
> > > > > > > > > So far, so good, and in agreement with experimental results.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now there are people such as for example 'Lou' in this forum,
> > > > > > > > > who cannot or will not accept or understand this.
> > > > > > > > > They hold that obverved clock effects must be due to 'gravity'
> > > > > > > > > affecting the workings of the clock, somehow.
> > > > > > > > > In other words, they ascribe the observed clock effects
> > > > > > > > > to physical causes, 'gravity' affecting the workings of clocks,
> > > > > > > > > rather than to intrinsic space-time effects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fortunately it is easy to settle the point by experiment.
> > > > > > > > > GR predicts that all clocks on the rotating geoid on Earth
> > > > > > > > > must run at the same rate, when compared with each other.
> > > > > > > > > Experiment bears this out, to accuracies approaching 10^-15.
> > > > > > > > > This is of immense practical importance,
> > > > > > > > > because it is the basis for realising the SI second.
> > > > > > > > > (on which -all- physical measurement depends nowadays)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OTOH the force of gravity, as measured by 'small' g,
> > > > > > > > > the acceleration of gravity, varies markedly over the geoid.
> > > > > > > > > (by about 0.5%, between the poles and the equator)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If (the force of) 'gravity' influenced the rate of the clocks
> > > > > > > > > there should be an effect of geographical latitude
> > > > > > > > > on the rate of clocks.
> > > > > > > > > The idea that 'gravity' affects the rate at which clocks run
> > > > > > > > > is a misconception without basis in observed fact,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A desperately misguided post from JJ.
> > > > > > > > You did not really read any of my posts. If you did...Then you
> > > > > > > > deliberately ignored the fact that I *very* explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > > in a classical model "little g" is acceleration only. Not force.
> > > > > > > > And you ignored the fact that I very clearly stated that force
> > > > > > > > on the atoms at different altitudes in a classical model should be
> > > > > > > > calculated using r.
> > > > > > > Indeed, there is little point, because you go on harping about
> > > > > > > your r, and you are ignoring all sound advice by others.
> > > > > > > You can go on obfuscating because you limit yourself
> > > > > > > to situations with spherical symmetry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So to see the errors of your ways you should consider situations
> > > > > > > where spherical symmetry does not hold.
> > > > > > > Then the surfaces of constant potential do not coincide
> > > > > > > with surfaces of constant acceleration, or constant r.
> > > > > > > > Not the m/s^2 acceleration of r^2 in "little g".
> > > > > > > > Seeing as everyone except a profound idiot would think
> > > > > > > > acceleration = force.
> > > > > > > > And If you actually read my posts rather than thump your bible,
> > > > > > > > you would realise that I also said that force is what Laplace
> > > > > > > > called gravitational potential. And what Newton referred to as a
> > > > > > > > scalar field.
> > > > > > > > And what Einstein used to calculate his GR clock rate effects.
> > > > > > > > (Notice the r of Laplace's gravitational potential and
> > > > > > > > Newton's scalar field is also the r used in GR. Not r^2 of
> > > > > > > > little g.)
> > > > > > > > So if you claim that experiment shows no change of clock
> > > > > > > > rates at different sea level latitudes. Then you have not
> > > > > > > > only confirmed the predictions of GR.. You have also confirmed
> > > > > > > > the predictions of classical theory. Seeing as they both use r to
> > > > > > > > accurately calculate tick rates at different altitudes.
> > > > > > > Experiment shows that clocks on the geoid run at constant rates
> > > > > > > wrt each other. Note that the geoid is not a surface of constant r,
> > > > > > > nor a surface of constant g,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > A straw man argument if ever you make.
> > > > > > Yes I've looked at your 'geoid' now and how it varies slightly by
> > > > > > about 200m relative to the reference geoid and how technically the r
> > > > > > distance doesn't exactly follow the geoid surface. That makes sense.
> > > > > > Splitting hairs though on your part to pretend somehow this rules out
> > > > > > a classical model which uses r. I notice you didn't actually specify
> > > > > > why it would. In fact it doesn't rule out in any way a classical model
> > > > > > any more than it would rule out GR.
> > > > > > Because in a classical calculation if one needs to assume
> > > > > > *exactly* the *total* mass M of the earth at r, then yes to be
> > > > > > *absolutely* accurate the geoid surface has to be used. Not the
> > > > > > actual distance r.
> > > > > > But the same applies to GR. And the fact remains that generally,
> > > > > > the force of gravity in a classical model follows r not r^2.
> > > > > > (And to please the pedant JJ,... with ever so small meter length
> > > > > > fluctuations in the exact distance of r to also be taken into account)
> > > > > So you missed all points, again. I'll simplify.
> > > > > The geoid surface is by definition an equipotential surface of the
> > > > > Newtonian potential.
> > > > > So it coincides (almost) with the mean sea level.
> > > > > The geoid is (to a very good approximation) an ellipsoid of revolution.
> > > > > The small differences between geoid and ellipsoid
> > > > > (due to slightly irregular mass distributions inside the Earth)
> > > > > don't matter for what follows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g > average,
> > > > > potential = constant
> > > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > > potential = same constant
> > > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid..
> > > > >
> > > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three places?
> > > > > No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same,
> > > > > and if you can by how much,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said the
> > > > force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know that m/s^2
> > > > is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you want to
> > > > split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200 meters. Which is
> > > > why very accurate measurements of clock rates will show constant rates at
> > > > the surface of the geoid only. And not to r. But that's still consistent
> > > > with a classical model as much as with GR.
> > > So you have nothing to say,
> > > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> > >
> > I suppose there isn't much more to say to a person such as yourself who
> > thinks that force=acceleration.
> OK, so you give up,
>
I give up trying to make you understand that a true classical model
does not use acceleration to describe the force of gravity. Only
relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model acceleration=force.

On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> force of gravity.

Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
are "true". But we can know when they are false, and the "classical
model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to be false (but it is
often useful as an approximation).

As far as the relationship between acceleration and force is concerned,
here in the context of NM, what is used is Newton's second law:
F = m a
where F is the total force on an object, m is its mass, and a is its
acceleration. This is implicitly relative to some inertial frame; F, m,
and a are all invariant under Galilean transforms (change of coordinates
to a different inertial frame).

> Only relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model
> acceleration=force.

NONSENSE! NOBODY thinks that. YOU are confused. The only "classical
model" here is Newtonian mechanics, and in NM the second law applies:
F = m a

> They do it to make sure a classical model can’t correctly predict
> the change of resonant frequencies of atoms at different potentials.

More nonsense. In Newtonian mechanics, time is universal and NM predicts
zero "time dilation" under any and all circumstances. NM is DIFFERENT
from relativity, and wrong.

> Force of gravity was called potential by Laplace.[...]

Still more nonsense. The force of gravity is minus the gradient of the
gravitational potential. They have NEVER been "equal" as you suppose.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES AND FANTASIES are
wrong.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 12:34:35 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:08:57?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [-]
> > > > > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g >
> > > > > > > average, potential = constant
> > > > > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > > > > potential = same constant
> > > > > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km, g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2,
> > > > > > > compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three
> > > > > > > places? No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same, and
> > > > > > > if you can by how much,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said
> > > > > > the force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > > > > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > > > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know
> > > > > > that m/s^2 is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > > > > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the
> > > > > > force of gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > > > > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you
> > > > > > want to split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200
> > > > > > meters. Which is why very accurate measurements of clock rates
> > > > > > will show constant rates at the surface of the geoid only. And not
> > > > > > to r. But that's still consistent with a classical model as much
> > > > > > as with GR.
> > > > > So you have nothing to say,
> > > > > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > "... a right answer".
> > > There is only one,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > There's only one metric? How about when there are three?
> One geoid, and one right answer, not one metric.
> > What about when normed-spaces aren't metric spaces and vice-versa?
> >
> > If boost addition is part of GR, then it has to be setup to be
> > that the geodesy is always instantaneously evaluated everywhere.
> No prolem, the whole idea applies in the Newtonian approximation
> to GR anyway. (so v^2 << c^2)
>
> Jan

A spherical or elliptical geoid?

When it comes to "algebraic geometry, I rather prefer Lefschetz and Picard, and maybe Kodaira,
"algebraic GEOMETRY", to for example Bourbaki or Groethendieck, "ALGEBRAIC geometry".

Then about the geoid, it seemed a good idea to read Kepler's treatise, it's quite good,
through a lens of about a few hundred years. (Re "spherical or elliptical or spherical, ...".)

About the higher-order terms and multipole moment and so on, here in terms of metrization
as it were, such terms live in the "highly-non-linear" but just as well "circuitous", representing
all the dimensioned quantities that result in a standing projection, "dimensionless quantities",
with respect to all higher-order moments, and about here particularly "any acceleration
is all the higher orders of acceleration", and "there are no perfectly inelastic collisions".
That "force is virtual" because for example "it's the potential fields that are real, the
classical is just the sum of all the potentials", makes for both its success in the linear,
and, getting into the mechanics separating linear and rotational, and kinetics and kinematics,
about why energy comes in many kinds, and, momentum these days is in some place,
"pseudo-momentum", with respect to what gets "conserved".

These days Hamiltonians are more often Hamilton-Jacobi, and
usually enough "Lagrangians", if not to be throwing shade on
good old bra-ket and boost addition.

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 23:58:54 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> > a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> > force of gravity.
> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
> models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
> are "true".

While there is, indeed, nothing "true" in your moronic
mumble - you have no clue what is this "truth" you're
trying to talk about.

> NM is DIFFERENT
> from relativity, and wrong.

Oppositely - your Shit is different from NM and wrong.
The mumble of your idiot guru wasn't even consistent.

> Still more nonsense. The force of gravity is minus the gradient of the
> gravitational potential. They have NEVER been "equal" as you suppose.

The force of gravity, as your idiot guru has
announced - doesn't exist. You should really
learn the basics of your moronic religion.

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 22:58:54 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/13/23 3:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> > a true classical model does not use acceleration to describe the
> > force of gravity.
> Well, there is no such thing as a "true" model in physics -- physical
> models are valid or invalid, but we humans can never know whether they
> are "true". But we can know when they are false, and the "classical
> model" known as Newtonian mechanics (NM) is known to be false (but it is
> often useful as an approximation).
>
Exactly....it’s false. Gravity force isn’t acceleration based on r^2.
Thats what I have been trying to get you lot to understand
this whole time. Einstein realised this and used potential. Laplace
realised that gravity force was potential. Newton knew this and
called gravity force a scalar field. And others like Levy also
proposed this
The ridiculous part of your argument is that although do you admit
r^2 doesn’t work ...you cannot bear to have anyone point out
that to make a classical theory work...one must use r of potential.
Despite being in the hypocritical position of accepting that
GR theory can ditch r^2…and use r of potential.

> As far as the relationship between acceleration and force is concerned,
> here in the context of NM, what is used is Newton's second law:
> F = m a
> where F is the total force on an object, m is its mass, and a is its
> acceleration. This is implicitly relative to some inertial frame; F, m,
> and a are all invariant under Galilean transforms (change of coordinates
> to a different inertial frame).

Word salad. R^2 isn’t F=ma. It is a ridiculous F=a. You know it is.
Dont pretend it isn’t.

> > Only relativists (or idiots) think in a classical model
> > acceleration=force.
> NONSENSE! NOBODY thinks that. YOU are confused. The only "classical
> model" here is Newtonian mechanics, and in NM the second law applies:
> F = m a

No...YOU think acceleration=force. Not me.,You just spent your whole post trying
to pretend in a classical model that m/s^2= force.
It isn’t . ITS CALLED ACCELERATION. Einstein realised this.

> > They do it to make sure a classical model can’t correctly predict
> > the change of resonant frequencies of atoms at different potentials.
> More nonsense. In Newtonian mechanics, time is universal and NM predicts
> zero "time dilation" under any and all circumstances. NM is DIFFERENT
> from relativity, and wrong.
>
The only nonsense is your silly claim that I said a classical model
predicts time dilation. That’s GR.
A classical model says no time dilation is occuring. What you
are seeing is a harmonic oscillator (c-133) changing its resonant
frequency due to an external force of gravity.
And we have known harmonic oscillators do change frequencies
under external force for longer than GR has been around.

> > Force of gravity was called potential by Laplace.[...]
>
> Still more nonsense. The force of gravity is minus the gradient of the
> gravitational potential. They have NEVER been "equal" as you suppose.
>
The force of gravity increases the closer you get to the mass.
Proportional to r. That’s what potential really is.
You don’t understand basic physics. The mathematical gimmick
you refer to is based on the flawed interpretation of the observation
that it needs more energy to fly higher.
Of course an idiot would think that if it takes more energy to go
from surface to 3r than from surface to 2r then they would in their
stupidity think that the force of gravity also increases proportional to r.

> You REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES AND FANTASIES are
> wrong.

If I’m wrong to model the effects of gravity with r...then why is
OK for Albert to use r of potential to model the effects of gravity?
You don’t even realise what a hypocrite you are.

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 12:34:35?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:08:57?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:08:45?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 13:30:18 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [-]
> > > > > > > > Now, on the geoid, and at the poles, we have: r < average g >
> > > > > > > > average, potential = constant
> > > > > > > > On the geoid, at mid-latitudes we have r = average, g = average,
> > > > > > > > potential = same constant
> > > > > > > > On the geoid, at the equator, we have r > average, g < average,
> > > > > > > > potential = still the same constant, by definition of the geoid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The differences are huge, r = 6357-6378 km,
> > > > > > > > g = 9.863-9.798 m/s2, compared to clock stabilities of 10^-15.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is your prediction for the rates of clocks in those three
> > > > > > > > places? No verbiage, just say faster, slower, or the same, and
> > > > > > > > if you can by how much,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you tried reading my posts you wouldn't be pretending I said
> > > > > > > the force of gravity is 9.863-9.798 m/s2.
> > > > > > Too bad if you didn't say it, for those are the measured values.
> > > > > > > That's r^2 and it's called acceleration. You don't seem to know
> > > > > > > that m/s^2 is acceleration!!! Since when does Force=acceleration?
> > > > > > > In all my posts I state very clearly that in a classical model the
> > > > > > > force of gravity is modelled with GM/r.
> > > > > > > And I already responded to your point on geoids that yes if you
> > > > > > > want to split hairs the geoid surface varies from r by up to 200
> > > > > > > meters. Which is why very accurate measurements of clock rates
> > > > > > > will show constant rates at the surface of the geoid only. And not
> > > > > > > to r. But that's still consistent with a classical model as much
> > > > > > > as with GR.
> > > > > > So you have nothing to say,
> > > > > > beyond agreeing that general relativity gives the right answer,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > "... a right answer".
> > > > There is only one,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > There's only one metric? How about when there are three?
> > One geoid, and one right answer, not one metric.
> > > What about when normed-spaces aren't metric spaces and vice-versa?
> > >
> > > If boost addition is part of GR, then it has to be setup to be
> > > that the geodesy is always instantaneously evaluated everywhere.
> > No prolem, the whole idea applies in the Newtonian approximation
> > to GR anyway. (so v^2 << c^2)
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> A spherical or elliptical geoid?

Whatever it is. As so often with those things,
the reality is being changed by definition.
Instead of that pesky 'mean sea level',
which is hard to determine accurately, and unstable,
the geoid is being redefined as that surface on which an atomic clock
runs at TT, so in practice at TAI time.
The name for it is the 'chronometric geoid'.
The actual shape is quite irregular.

Jan