On Monday, 20 December 2021 at 23:29:13 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/19/21 3:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Free falling observers see the same laws of physics,
> > > in their rest frame.
> >
> > Interesting that you understand and accept this,
> Have I ever said anything else?
> FYI, you are being excessively silly wrt to me,
> and you really should know better.
> > but don't accept the
> > immediate corollary: identical clocks all tick at the same rate (in
> > their respective rest frames), if they are carried by free-falling
> > observers; this is independent of their location in a gravitational
> > potential, and of their relative velocities. After all, a clock's tick
> > rate is clearly determined by the laws of physics in its rest frame.
> >
> > Actually your statement is not quite right, as gravity is excluded. A
> > better statement is:
> >
> > The local laws of physics are the same in every locally
> > inertial frame.
> >
> > (Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime, and is thus not local.)
> Yes, yes, technicalities.
> > Note that for comparisons of atomic clock tick rates via EM signals, the
> > difference between free falling and located at rest on earth's surface
> > is negligible. This is so because the comparison takes such a very short
> > time that a free-falling frame initially equal to the earth-surface
> > frame diverges from the latter by a negligible amount during the
> > comparison. (Do not be deceived by a succession of comparisons that
> > together have a long duration.)
> I'll try to make you see your mistake once more, in a simpler way.
> We are dealing with two things here.
> 1) Real clocks, bolted to tables in laboratories, built and run by
> experimenters who know their thing.
> 2) Non-existent clocks, flashing by on imagined world lines,
> that only theoreticians can read in in their mind's eye.
> You have not understood the connection between the two correctly.
>
> Your imagined clocks may run at the same rate,
> the real world experimenter's ones don't.
> Any experimenter with state of the art optical clock will tell you that.
> The differences are by now almost routinely measured,
> and they have important technical applications.
> It is by now a multi-million European research and development project,
> in which about a dozen national metrology labs cooperate.
>
> Since you haven't been to clear enough about how you think
> that your imagined clocks and the real clocks in a laboratory
> are related it is not possible for me to pinpoint your error.
> OTOH, since your conclusions are so obviously counter-factual
> you must have made a conceptual error somewhere.
>
> BTW, I think you should get over it.
> You made a mistake, and being as stubborn about it as the Woz
> is doing you no good,

Sorry, Lod, it was not him making this mistake.
It's a mistake of your whole moronic religion.

Mark-T <mark-t2@lycos.com> wrote:
> On December 19, 2021 at 1:29:02 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the other, but
>>>>> that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than the other.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run faster,
>>>> objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
>>
>>> Define "runs faster"
>>
>> Do you really need that?
>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
>
> I'm trying to follow this chaotic debate, and have a basic question.
>
> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They accumulate different
> proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".

Well, there’s the trick, you see. You did a comparison of clocks over a
distance between them. To do so requires sending signals from one place to
another.

>
> Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock (lab) to
> broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick, digitally. Will all receivers,
> whatever their state of motion, see the same rate of increasing discrepancy of
> tick counts?

This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling clock’s
TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at elevation R <
r below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space at elevation R’>> r
above the falling clock. Lots of easy GR books talk about clocks falling
into black holes, which is close enough to find the answer.

>
>
>
> Mark
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 09:41:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They accumulate different
> > proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
> Well, there’s the trick, you see. You did a comparison of clocks over a
> distance between them. To do so requires sending signals from one place to
> another.

And that's making a wide gap for some brilliant explaination that
"it's not so". As a skilled sophist I would classify it as a task of
lower medium difficulty, but for a true religious maniac it's as
natural as breathing.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 20 December 2021 at 23:29:12 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> >
> > > El domingo, 19 de diciembre de 2021 a las 18:29:03 UTC-3, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > El sábado, 18 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:32:21 UTC-3, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/16/21 8:42 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > Gravitational time dilatation is not a propagation effect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmmmm. See below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is inherent in the gravitational potential being higher
> > > > > > > > or lower. (yes, in Newtonian language)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmmmm. See below.
> > > > > > You should stop Hmmm-Hmmming, and think and speak clearly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To make sure we talk about the same things I give a simple
> > > > > > experiment.
> > > > > > Suppose we have a lab, and several optical clocks.
> > > > > > There is one on the lab bench, and suppose for convenience
> > > > > > that it ticks at 500 THz precisely, so at 5*10^14 Hz.
> > > > > > (with a stability of 10^-18)
> > > > > > Now take a second identical clock,
> > > > > > and place it on a pedestal about one meter higher on the bench.
> > > > > > So with a \Delta\Phi of 10 m^2/s^2. (with c^2 ~= 10^17)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That one meter difference in height, means both clocks are following
> > > > > different paths through spacetime.
> > > > While being both at rest in your room.
> > > > With sufficient purism you can even insist
> > > > that no two atoms can follow the same path through space-time.
> > > > That is just silly pedantry, without any empirical meaning.
> > > > > > By everybody's understanding of general relativity
> > > > > > (and perhaps also by yours)
> > > > > > it will tick at a rate of (1 + 10^-16) THz,
> > > > > > so at 5 x 10^14 + 0.05 Hz.
> > > > > > This difference in frequency is easily demonstrated.
> > > > > > Take light from the upper clock,
> > > > > > and bring it down with mirrors to the lower one,
> > > > > > and let them interfere.
> > > > > > You will see beats with a period of 20 seconds.
> > > > > > Bring light from the lower one up, and idem.
> > > > > > By direct frequency measurement using laser spectroscopy
> > > > > > you can establish that the higher clock is faster,
> > > > > > as predicted by general relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, but in that case you are sending signals from the higher
> > > > > clock to the lower clock and then making the comparison there. In
> > > > > order to measure the time interval between them, the receiving
> > > > > clock must project that displacement 4-vector onto itself; that is
> > > > > a dot product involving the metric at the receiving clock's
> > > > > location.
> > > > No need to, but you snipped that.
> > > > In principle each clock can just count its ticks,
> > > > and you can see the counters diverge.
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Actually, that is a much more complex task. One of the best tests on
> > > gravitational time dilation was performed using optical lattice clocks in
> > > Tokio. The experiment is decribed in the paper "Takamoto et al. (2020)
> > > Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable optical lattice
> > > clocks. Nat Photonics. doi: 10.1038/s41566-020-0619-8". You can read the
> > > paper at the following location:
> > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8.pdf
> > Yes, doing it with portable clocks makes it more difficult.
> > Being Japanese it is not surprising that are interested.
> > They intend to set up a clock based monitoring network
> > to detect gravitational potential changes,
> > hence deep ground motions around volcanoes,
> > such as lighter material moving upwards.
> > Measuring differences in clock rates makes it possible to see that
> > even when the ground does not move. (yet)
>
> JJ, poor halfbrain, 2 clocks perfectly adjusted
> to TAI may have different rates (frequencies, f),
> but share the same indications (time, t).

You must have been struck by lightning, or had a sudden brain wave.
This can be interpreted as your second correct posting today.
(but that may have been accidental)

For example, people at NIST, Boulder, have clocks that run fast,
with respect to TAI. (and UTC, and their legal local time)
They apply corrections to those clocks, obtained from BIPM, Paris,
to obtain TAI. (and UTC, and their local time)

So yes, local clocks run fast -and- they are adjusted
to give TAI and local time correctly.

> It's either your time dilation idiocy or (xor) differences in frequencies.
> According to your idiot guru TAI is improper/wrong/evil, and that's what
> your fellow idiot Tom is trying to explain you.

Einstein never said anything about TAI of course.
It exists in its present form since 1977,
when the correction to TAI for clocks running at differen rates
at different altitudes was introduced. [1]

Einstein, had he been alive, would have agreed with it all.
It is in complete agreement with his prediction
of gravitational redshift, from his general theory of relativity.

Jan

[1] Before 1977, TAI was a hodge-pogde average
of clocks at different altitudes.
It was heavily biased on the fast side by NIST at Boulder being so high.
The second became about a trillionth shorter
as a result of the 1977 adjustment.
Very few people noticed, but those in the know knew it.

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 11:32:56 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 20 December 2021 at 23:29:12 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > El domingo, 19 de diciembre de 2021 a las 18:29:03 UTC-3, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > El sábado, 18 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:32:21 UTC-3, J.. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/16/21 8:42 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Gravitational time dilatation is not a propagation effect..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmmmm. See below.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is inherent in the gravitational potential being higher
> > > > > > > > > or lower. (yes, in Newtonian language)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmmmm. See below.
> > > > > > > You should stop Hmmm-Hmmming, and think and speak clearly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To make sure we talk about the same things I give a simple
> > > > > > > experiment.
> > > > > > > Suppose we have a lab, and several optical clocks.
> > > > > > > There is one on the lab bench, and suppose for convenience
> > > > > > > that it ticks at 500 THz precisely, so at 5*10^14 Hz.
> > > > > > > (with a stability of 10^-18)
> > > > > > > Now take a second identical clock,
> > > > > > > and place it on a pedestal about one meter higher on the bench.
> > > > > > > So with a \Delta\Phi of 10 m^2/s^2. (with c^2 ~= 10^17)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That one meter difference in height, means both clocks are following
> > > > > > different paths through spacetime.
> > > > > While being both at rest in your room.
> > > > > With sufficient purism you can even insist
> > > > > that no two atoms can follow the same path through space-time.
> > > > > That is just silly pedantry, without any empirical meaning.
> > > > > > > By everybody's understanding of general relativity
> > > > > > > (and perhaps also by yours)
> > > > > > > it will tick at a rate of (1 + 10^-16) THz,
> > > > > > > so at 5 x 10^14 + 0.05 Hz.
> > > > > > > This difference in frequency is easily demonstrated.
> > > > > > > Take light from the upper clock,
> > > > > > > and bring it down with mirrors to the lower one,
> > > > > > > and let them interfere.
> > > > > > > You will see beats with a period of 20 seconds.
> > > > > > > Bring light from the lower one up, and idem.
> > > > > > > By direct frequency measurement using laser spectroscopy
> > > > > > > you can establish that the higher clock is faster,
> > > > > > > as predicted by general relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, but in that case you are sending signals from the higher
> > > > > > clock to the lower clock and then making the comparison there. In
> > > > > > order to measure the time interval between them, the receiving
> > > > > > clock must project that displacement 4-vector onto itself; that is
> > > > > > a dot product involving the metric at the receiving clock's
> > > > > > location.
> > > > > No need to, but you snipped that.
> > > > > In principle each clock can just count its ticks,
> > > > > and you can see the counters diverge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Actually, that is a much more complex task. One of the best tests on
> > > > gravitational time dilation was performed using optical lattice clocks in
> > > > Tokio. The experiment is decribed in the paper "Takamoto et al. (2020)
> > > > Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable optical lattice
> > > > clocks. Nat Photonics. doi: 10.1038/s41566-020-0619-8". You can read the
> > > > paper at the following location:
> > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8.pdf
> > > Yes, doing it with portable clocks makes it more difficult.
> > > Being Japanese it is not surprising that are interested.
> > > They intend to set up a clock based monitoring network
> > > to detect gravitational potential changes,
> > > hence deep ground motions around volcanoes,
> > > such as lighter material moving upwards.
> > > Measuring differences in clock rates makes it possible to see that
> > > even when the ground does not move. (yet)
> >
> > JJ, poor halfbrain, 2 clocks perfectly adjusted
> > to TAI may have different rates (frequencies, f),
> > but share the same indications (time, t).
> You must have been struck by lightning, or had a sudden brain wave.
> This can be interpreted as your second correct posting today.
> (but that may have been accidental)
>
> For example, people at NIST, Boulder, have clocks that run fast,
> with respect to TAI. (and UTC, and their legal local time)
> They apply corrections to those clocks, obtained from BIPM, Paris,
> to obtain TAI. (and UTC, and their local time)

All of this is evil. Your idiot guru has postulated
identical, local clocks of equal priority, and that's
why your fellow idiot Tom is explaining you that
you can't.

> So yes, local clocks run fast -and- they are adjusted
> to give TAI and local time correctly.

And they indicate the same TAI time, thefre is only one.
If t is the time indicated by one [TAI] clock and t' is the
time indicated by another - t'=t. Face it, poor halfbrain.

If the travelling twins had his clock adjusted to TAI,
there wouldn't be any differences in time elapsed
between his clock and another TAI clock used by
his brother. The same is true with GPS time and
GPS satellites. I'm so sorry.

> Einstein, had he been alive, would have agreed with it all.

His successors, doing the same insane pseudomathematical
mysticism, are alive and don't agree. If you didn't noticed.

El lunes, 20 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:29:13 UTC-3, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/19/21 3:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Free falling observers see the same laws of physics,
> > > in their rest frame.
> >
> > Interesting that you understand and accept this,
> Have I ever said anything else?
> FYI, you are being excessively silly wrt to me,
> and you really should know better.
> > but don't accept the
> > immediate corollary: identical clocks all tick at the same rate (in
> > their respective rest frames), if they are carried by free-falling
> > observers; this is independent of their location in a gravitational
> > potential, and of their relative velocities. After all, a clock's tick
> > rate is clearly determined by the laws of physics in its rest frame.
> >
> > Actually your statement is not quite right, as gravity is excluded. A
> > better statement is:
> >
> > The local laws of physics are the same in every locally
> > inertial frame.
> >
> > (Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime, and is thus not local.)
> Yes, yes, technicalities.
> > Note that for comparisons of atomic clock tick rates via EM signals, the
> > difference between free falling and located at rest on earth's surface
> > is negligible. This is so because the comparison takes such a very short
> > time that a free-falling frame initially equal to the earth-surface
> > frame diverges from the latter by a negligible amount during the
> > comparison. (Do not be deceived by a succession of comparisons that
> > together have a long duration.)
> I'll try to make you see your mistake once more, in a simpler way.
> We are dealing with two things here.
> 1) Real clocks, bolted to tables in laboratories, built and run by
> experimenters who know their thing.
> 2) Non-existent clocks, flashing by on imagined world lines,
> that only theoreticians can read in in their mind's eye.
> You have not understood the connection between the two correctly.
>
> Your imagined clocks may run at the same rate,
> the real world experimenter's ones don't.
> Any experimenter with state of the art optical clock will tell you that.
> The differences are by now almost routinely measured,
> and they have important technical applications.
> It is by now a multi-million European research and development project,
> in which about a dozen national metrology labs cooperate.
>
> Since you haven't been to clear enough about how you think
> that your imagined clocks and the real clocks in a laboratory
> are related it is not possible for me to pinpoint your error.
> OTOH, since your conclusions are so obviously counter-factual
> you must have made a conceptual error somewhere.
>
> BTW, I think you should get over it.
> You made a mistake, and being as stubborn about it as the Woz
> is doing you no good,
>
> Jan

GR predicts the dilation of time in a deeper gravitational potential; this is referred to as gravitational redshift. The gravitational
redshift between clocks (Δν=ν2−ν1) located at positions 1 and 2 is given by their gravitational potential difference ΔU=U2−U1 as

Δν/ν1=(1 + α) ΔU/c^2

to first order of ΔU, where ν1 and v2 are the clock frequencies at location 1 and 2, c is the speed of light and α denotes the violation from GR (α=0 for GR). The measurement of α at different locations serves as a test of local position invariance (LPI), which describes the result of a non-local gravitational experiment being independent of place and time, which is at the heart of Einstein's equivalence principle, the starting principle of GR.

A gravitational redshift can also equivalently be interpreted as gravitational time dilation at the source of the radiation: if two oscillators (producing electromagnetic radiation) are operating at different gravitational potentials, the oscillator (clock 2) at the higher gravitational potential (farther from the attracting body) will SEEM to ‘tick’ faster; that is, when observed from the same location (of clock 1), it will have a higher measured frequency than the oscillator at the lower gravitational potential (closer to the attracting body).

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 17:02:44 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 20 de diciembre de 2021 a las 19:29:13 UTC-3, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/19/21 3:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Free falling observers see the same laws of physics,
> > > > in their rest frame.
> > >
> > > Interesting that you understand and accept this,
> > Have I ever said anything else?
> > FYI, you are being excessively silly wrt to me,
> > and you really should know better.
> > > but don't accept the
> > > immediate corollary: identical clocks all tick at the same rate (in
> > > their respective rest frames), if they are carried by free-falling
> > > observers; this is independent of their location in a gravitational
> > > potential, and of their relative velocities. After all, a clock's tick
> > > rate is clearly determined by the laws of physics in its rest frame.
> > >
> > > Actually your statement is not quite right, as gravity is excluded. A
> > > better statement is:
> > >
> > > The local laws of physics are the same in every locally
> > > inertial frame.
> > >
> > > (Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime, and is thus not local.)
> > Yes, yes, technicalities.
> > > Note that for comparisons of atomic clock tick rates via EM signals, the
> > > difference between free falling and located at rest on earth's surface
> > > is negligible. This is so because the comparison takes such a very short
> > > time that a free-falling frame initially equal to the earth-surface
> > > frame diverges from the latter by a negligible amount during the
> > > comparison. (Do not be deceived by a succession of comparisons that
> > > together have a long duration.)
> > I'll try to make you see your mistake once more, in a simpler way.
> > We are dealing with two things here.
> > 1) Real clocks, bolted to tables in laboratories, built and run by
> > experimenters who know their thing.
> > 2) Non-existent clocks, flashing by on imagined world lines,
> > that only theoreticians can read in in their mind's eye.
> > You have not understood the connection between the two correctly.
> >
> > Your imagined clocks may run at the same rate,
> > the real world experimenter's ones don't.
> > Any experimenter with state of the art optical clock will tell you that..
> > The differences are by now almost routinely measured,
> > and they have important technical applications.
> > It is by now a multi-million European research and development project,
> > in which about a dozen national metrology labs cooperate.
> >
> > Since you haven't been to clear enough about how you think
> > that your imagined clocks and the real clocks in a laboratory
> > are related it is not possible for me to pinpoint your error.
> > OTOH, since your conclusions are so obviously counter-factual
> > you must have made a conceptual error somewhere.
> >
> > BTW, I think you should get over it.
> > You made a mistake, and being as stubborn about it as the Woz
> > is doing you no good,
> >
> > Jan
> GR predicts the dilation of time in a deeper gravitational potential; this is referred to as gravitational redshift. The gravitational
> redshift between clocks (Δν=ν2−ν1) located at positions 1 and 2 is given by their gravitational potential difference ΔU=U2−U1 as

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

On December 21, 2021 at 12:41:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the other, but
>>>>>> that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than the other.
>
>>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run faster,
>>>>> objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
>> >>> Define "runs faster"
>
>>> Do you really need that?
>>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
>>
>> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They accumulate different
>> proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
>
> > Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock (lab) to
> > broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick, digitally. Will all receivers,
> > whatever their state of motion, see the same rate of increasing discrepancy of
> > tick counts?
>
> This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling clock’s
> TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at elevation R < r
> below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space at elevation R’>> r
> above the falling clock.

You missed the point. I'll try to simplify it.

Given two clocks, H at high grav. potential, and L at lower potential.
They broadcast their tick count, at each tick.
A receiver, far away, receives:
H: 100, L: 80;
H: 150, L: 120
H: 200, L: 160

i.e. He sees H running 20% faster than L.

Will EVERY observer see the same 20% rate differential?

> Lots of easy GR books talk about clocks falling
> into black holes, which is close enough to find the answer.

Vague appeals to books doesn't address the question.

Mark

Mark-T <mark-t2@lycos.com> wrote:

> On December 21, 2021 at 12:41:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the
> >>>>>> other, but that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than
> >>>>>> the other.
> >
> >>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run
> >>>>> faster, objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
> >> >>> Define "runs faster"
> >
> >>> Do you really need that?
> >>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
> >>
> >> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They accumulate
> >> different proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
> >
> > > Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock
> > > (lab) to broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick,
> > > digitally. Will all receivers, whatever their state of motion, see the
> > > same rate of increasing discrepancy of tick counts?
> >
> > This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling clock's
> > TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at elevation R
> > < r below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space at elevation
> > R'>> r above the falling clock.
>
> You missed the point. I'll try to simplify it.
>
> Given two clocks, H at high grav. potential, and L at lower potential.
> They broadcast their tick count, at each tick.
> A receiver, far away, receives:
> H: 100, L: 80;
> H: 150, L: 120
> H: 200, L: 160
>
> i.e. He sees H running 20% faster than L.
>
> Will EVERY observer see the same 20% rate differential?

Yes, for not too large values of 'every'.
It holds as long as the Newtonian approximation is valid.

Sigh, and again: the ratio depends only
on the Newtonian potential difference between the clocks,
(your 20% is a bit largish)

In particular, all human observers
agree on the relativistic corrections
that must be applied to GPS clocks in orbit,
or on the difference between barycentric time and TAI,

Jan

Mark-T <mark-t2@lycos.com> wrote:
> On December 21, 2021 at 12:41:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the other, but
>>>>>>> that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than the other.
>>
>>>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run faster,
>>>>>> objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
>>>>>> Define "runs faster"
>>
>>>> Do you really need that?
>>>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
>>>
>>> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They accumulate different
>>> proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
>>
>>> Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock (lab) to
>>> broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick, digitally. Will all receivers,
>>> whatever their state of motion, see the same rate of increasing discrepancy of
>>> tick counts?
>>
>> This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling clock’s
>> TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at elevation R < r
>> below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space at elevation R’>> r
>> above the falling clock.
>
> You missed the point. I'll try to simplify it.
>
> Given two clocks, H at high grav. potential, and L at lower potential.
> They broadcast their tick count, at each tick.
> A receiver, far away, receives:
> H: 100, L: 80;
> H: 150, L: 120
> H: 200, L: 160
>
> i.e. He sees H running 20% faster than L.

That ratiometric version of the question is *much* better posed, thanks.
The answer is yes for sufficiently short fall times (sufficiently short
worldlines).

>
> Will EVERY observer see the same 20% rate differential?
>
>> Lots of easy GR books talk about clocks falling
>> into black holes, which is close enough to find the answer.
>
> Vague appeals to books doesn't address the question.

But reading the books (Kip Thorne’s book on black holes for example) would
answer the question. Far more effective than trying to learn relativity
here.

>
> Mark
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark-T <mark-t2@lycos.com> wrote:
> > On December 21, 2021 at 12:41:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the
> >>>>>>> other, but that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than
> >>>>>>> the other.
> >>
> >>>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run
> >>>>>> faster, objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
> >>>>>> Define "runs faster"
> >>
> >>>> Do you really need that?
> >>>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
> >>>
> >>> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They
> >>> accumulate different proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
> >>
> >>> Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock
> >>> (lab) to broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick,
> >>> digitally. Will all receivers, whatever their state of motion, see the
> >>> same rate of increasing discrepancy of tick counts?
> >>
> >> This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling
> >> clock's TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at
> >> elevation R < r below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space
> >> at elevation R'>> r above the falling clock.
> >
> > You missed the point. I'll try to simplify it.
> >
> > Given two clocks, H at high grav. potential, and L at lower potential.
> > They broadcast their tick count, at each tick.
> > A receiver, far away, receives:
> > H: 100, L: 80;
> > H: 150, L: 120
> > H: 200, L: 160
> >
> > i.e. He sees H running 20% faster than L.
>
> That ratiometric version of the question is *much* better posed, thanks.

??? In what way do you think that this is 'much better'?
In what way is 'broadcasting the tick rate'
different from outputting the light beam of the optical clock?

'A tick' of an optical clock is just the E and B fields
going once through their sine waves.
What could 'seeing it running 10 % faster' mean,
other than measuring the frequency ratio?

It seems to me that both of you have not thought this through,

Jan

BTW, the 'far away' is a red herring.
The result is independent of how far away the receiver is.

On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 22:21:45 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mark-T <mar...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > On December 21, 2021 at 12:41:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the
> > >>>>>>> other, but that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than
> > >>>>>>> the other.
> > >>
> > >>>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run
> > >>>>>> faster, objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
> > >>>>>> Define "runs faster"
> > >>
> > >>>> Do you really need that?
> > >>>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
> > >>>
> > >>> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They
> > >>> accumulate different proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
> > >>
> > >>> Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock
> > >>> (lab) to broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick,
> > >>> digitally. Will all receivers, whatever their state of motion, see the
> > >>> same rate of increasing discrepancy of tick counts?
> > >>
> > >> This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling
> > >> clock's TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at
> > >> elevation R < r below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space
> > >> at elevation R'>> r above the falling clock.
> > >
> > > You missed the point. I'll try to simplify it.
> > >
> > > Given two clocks, H at high grav. potential, and L at lower potential.
> > > They broadcast their tick count, at each tick.
> > > A receiver, far away, receives:
> > > H: 100, L: 80;
> > > H: 150, L: 120
> > > H: 200, L: 160
> > >
> > > i.e. He sees H running 20% faster than L.
> >
> > That ratiometric version of the question is *much* better posed, thanks.
> ??? In what way do you think that this is 'much better'?
> In what way is 'broadcasting the tick rate'
> different from outputting the light beam of the optical clock?
>
> 'A tick' of an optical clock is just the E and B fields
> going once through their sine waves.
> What could 'seeing it running 10 % faster' mean,
> other than measuring the frequency ratio?

An assertion of an insane guru.

On 12/19/21 6:49 PM, RichD wrote:
> Now let me get this straight:

But you don't -- your words are too ambiguous and poorly defined.

> One clock is at a higher altitude, by one meter.
> The higher altitude unit ticks faster, as observed in the lab.
> General relativity predicts this, by "everybody's understanding".
> But it's NOT caused by a difference in local gravity.

If you want to COMPARE the tick rates of two identical clocks in the
lab, you must use SIGNALS to transport each clock's ticks to an
instrument at a common location where they can be compared. Do this, and
the SIGNALS from the higher clock tick faster than the SIGNALS from the
lower clock.

Why does this happen? -- for that instrument to measure the tick rate of
a signal, it must project that signal onto itself, because such
instruments always measure in their instantaneously co-moving locally
inertial frame -- this OUGHT to be obvious. In GR, that projection is a
dot product using the metric at the instrument's location. But the
signals originated at each clock, which is at a different location than
the instrument; it turns out that the difference in tick rate measured
by the clock and by the instrument is directly related to their
difference in gravitational potential.

Note the clocks all tick at the same rate -- put an identical instrument
right at each clock (i.e. co-located and co-moving with it), and the
instruments measure the same rate for each clock.

As I keep saying, and many people keep ignoring, this "gravitational
redshift" is NOT due to "clocks ticking differently", it is due to
differences in the way SIGNALS from the clocks are measured.

[There are other experiments that compare elapsed proper
times of the clocks. That is quite different, need not
involve signals, and requires a different analysis.]

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 11:06:14 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/19/21 6:49 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Now let me get this straight:
> But you don't -- your words are too ambiguous and poorly defined.
> > One clock is at a higher altitude, by one meter.
> > The higher altitude unit ticks faster, as observed in the lab.
> > General relativity predicts this, by "everybody's understanding".
> > But it's NOT caused by a difference in local gravity.
> If you want to COMPARE the tick rates of two identical clocks in the
> lab, you must use SIGNALS to transport each clock's ticks to an
> instrument at a common location where they can be compared. Do this, and
> the SIGNALS from the higher clock tick faster than the SIGNALS from the
> lower clock.
>
> Why does this happen? -- for that instrument to measure the tick rate of
> a signal, it must project that signal onto itself, because such
> instruments always measure in their instantaneously co-moving locally
> inertial frame -- this OUGHT to be obvious. In GR, that projection is a
> dot product using the metric at the instrument's location. But the
> signals originated at each clock, which is at a different location than
> the instrument; it turns out that the difference in tick rate measured
> by the clock and by the instrument is directly related to their
> difference in gravitational potential.
>
> Note the clocks all tick at the same rate -- put an identical instrument
> right at each clock (i.e. co-located and co-moving with it), and the
> instruments measure the same rate for each clock.
>
> As I keep saying, and many people keep ignoring, this "gravitational
> redshift" is NOT due to "clocks ticking differently", it is due to
> differences in the way SIGNALS from the clocks are measured.
>
> [There are other experiments that compare elapsed proper
> times of the clocks. That is quite different, need not
> involve signals, and requires a different analysis.]
>
> Tom Roberts

If each twin is separating from each other equal
should they not share the same clock?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, 23 December 2021 at 20:06:14 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/19/21 6:49 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Now let me get this straight:
> But you don't -- your words are too ambiguous and poorly defined.
> > One clock is at a higher altitude, by one meter.
> > The higher altitude unit ticks faster, as observed in the lab.
> > General relativity predicts this, by "everybody's understanding".
> > But it's NOT caused by a difference in local gravity.
> If you want to COMPARE the tick rates of two identical clocks in the
> lab, you must use SIGNALS to transport each clock's ticks to an
> instrument at a common location where they can be compared. Do this, and
> the SIGNALS from the higher clock tick faster than the SIGNALS from the
> lower clock.
>
> Why does this happen? -- for that instrument to measure the tick rate of
> a signal, it must project that signal onto itself, because such
> instruments always measure in their instantaneously co-moving locally
> inertial frame -- this OUGHT to be obvious. In GR, that projection is a
> dot product using the metric at the instrument's location. But the
> signals originated at each clock, which is at a different location than
> the instrument; it turns out that the difference in tick rate measured
> by the clock and by the instrument is directly related to their
> difference in gravitational potential.
>
> Note the clocks all tick at the same rate -- put an identical instrument
> right at each clock (i.e. co-located and co-moving with it), and the
> instruments measure the same rate for each clock.
>
> As I keep saying, and many people keep ignoring, this "gravitational
> redshift" is NOT due to "clocks ticking differently", it is due to
> differences in the way SIGNALS from the clocks are measured.
>
> [There are other experiments that compare elapsed proper
> times of the clocks. That is quite different, need not
> involve signals, and requires a different analysis.]

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did. Your screams that
we are FORCED simply didn't work.

If Time did not exist...would the clock keep on running?

i mean, a clock doesn't actually measure...time.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:46:47 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 12:49:41 -0800 (PST), "mitchr...@gmail.com"
><mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>would they not have equal clocks
>>by relative separation?
>
>
>Yous people don't seem to have any understanding of what Time is...
>
>
>Time and Space existed 'Before' the universe was created.
>
>
>It's in the 'Code'. you just need to decipher it correctly.
>
>The code is...'In the beginning God created the heavens and the
>earth.'
>
>
>"'In the beginning..." means,
>
>Beginning:
>"the point in time or space at which something starts."
>
>
>The "beginning" is a point in time, not the beginning of time.
>
>It is at which something starts, like for example...a universe.
>
>
>Before that point in time you have Time.
>
>
>Pick a point ' in' Time and that is when you can make 'something' to
>start..like a universe.
>
>Or pick an earlier point in time.
>
>
>So, that point in Time would be like...14 billion years ago.
>
>
>Now, don't tell me yous don't understand what "the point in time"
>means.
>
>
>Just take your little finger and point to where you want to start
>something.
>
>That's the beginning.
>
>
>"the point in time or space at which something starts."
>
>
>It is simply the first frame of the movie...
>
>
>16mm
>
>the part that gets exposed
>
>
>
>Have you even seen an unexposed 16mm film strip?
>
>
>comes in a container
>
>
>nothing on it....
>
>
>lights!
>
>action!
>
>
>The Starmaker

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 22:21:45 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark-T <mar...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > > On December 21, 2021 at 12:41:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> But the reason is NOT that one clock is ticking faster than the
> > > >>>>>>> other, but that one clock measures *more elapsed proper time* than
> > > >>>>>>> the other.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>> There is nothing relative about it: clocks that stand higher run
> > > >>>>>> faster, objectively, absolutely, and for all observers.
> > > >>>>>> Define "runs faster"
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Do you really need that?
> > > >>>> It runs faster if its ticks fall behind.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They
> > > >>> accumulate different proper times. The higher clock "runs faster".
> > > >>
> > > >>> Is this difference invariant for all observers? Permit each clock
> > > >>> (lab) to broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick,
> > > >>> digitally. Will all receivers, whatever their state of motion, see the
> > > >>> same rate of increasing discrepancy of tick counts?
> > > >>
> > > >> This you should be able to answer just by asking about a falling
> > > >> clock's TRANSMITTED tick signals as seen by someone on the ground at
> > > >> elevation R < r below the falling clock, and by someone in deep space
> > > >> at elevation R'>> r above the falling clock.
> > > >
> > > > You missed the point. I'll try to simplify it.
> > > >
> > > > Given two clocks, H at high grav. potential, and L at lower potential.
> > > > They broadcast their tick count, at each tick.
> > > > A receiver, far away, receives:
> > > > H: 100, L: 80;
> > > > H: 150, L: 120
> > > > H: 200, L: 160
> > > >
> > > > i.e. He sees H running 20% faster than L.
> > >
> > > That ratiometric version of the question is *much* better posed, thanks.
> > ??? In what way do you think that this is 'much better'?
> > In what way is 'broadcasting the tick rate'
> > different from outputting the light beam of the optical clock?
> >
> > 'A tick' of an optical clock is just the E and B fields
> > going once through their sine waves.
> > What could 'seeing it running 10 % faster' mean,
> > other than measuring the frequency ratio?
>
> An assertion of an insane guru.

Now this is great! I have been promoted to guru class.
Merely 'insane' but still.
Only one more step to go to reach 'idiot guru',
but I guess that is reserved for Einstein himself,

Jan

On 12/20/21 6:28 PM, Mark-T wrote:
> Given two clocks, in free fall, at different altitudes. They accumulate different
> proper times.

Hmmm. For weak fields (as near earth) this is true when compared
appropriately; they need not be in freefall. For strong fields there are
other difficulties that essentially make it impossible to make a simple
statement like this (e.g. "altitude" may be meaningless, or it may not
be possible to compare them appropriately).

> The higher clock "runs faster".

No. For identical clocks their tick rates are the same.

BUT: if you are in a region of weak fields (e.g. near earth), and can
construct a single Newtonian coordinate system that is valid for both
clocks, then you can say:

The higher clock ticks faster than the lower clock RELATIVE
TO THE TIME COORDINATE.

This is what several laboratory experiments at JILA/NIST do. The basic
problem with your statement is that it violates local Lorentz
invariance; the clause I added avoids that. This doesn't work for
astronomers, because the valid region of such coordinate systems is limited.

Note that comparing tick rates and comparing accumulated proper times
are DIFFERENT PHYSICAL SITUATIONS. Comparing tick rates of clocks not
located together requires SIGNALS, and one must account for effects on
the signals. Comparing the accumulated proper times of clocks not
located together can be done in some cases without signals, and in other
cases such that the signals don't matter (any effect on them cancels out).

Accurately measuring the tick rate of a clock is always done by having
the clock send an EM signal for each tick, which is received by an
instrument that measures the rate of the signals. Comparing two clocks
involves sending both clocks' signals to a common location where they
are compared. When one models this in GR, one finds that the entire
difference is due to the way the tick rate of EM signals is measured,
which is related to the different metric values at the source and
measurement locations.

Modeling the elapsed proper time of a clock in GR involves integrating
the metric over its path through spacetime. When two clocks' elapsed
proper times are compared appropriately, one finds the entire difference
is due to the different metric values along the clocks' paths through
spacetime.

> Is this difference invariant for all observers?

WHICH difference?
- Accumulating different proper times as discussed above - Yes.
But note this involves calculations along the clocks' paths, and
the observers simply do not matter.
- The higher clock "running faster" -- not observed. Note that
observers not co-located and co-moving with the clock cannot
measure its tick rate, and those that do can compare only by
sending notes to each other.
- EM signals from the higher clock ticking faster than EM signals
from the lower clock -- for observers at rest relative to the
clocks [#], yes; otherwise, no (the observers can have different
Doppler shifts and "time dilations" that affect their
measurements of rates).
- The higher clock ticking faster relative to the Newtonian time
coordinate, as above -- this applies only to that specific
coordinate system.

[#] Here there be dragons. In a lab on earth they disappear.

> Permit each clock (lab) to
> broadcast its accumulated tick count, at each tick, digitally. Will all receivers,
> whatever their state of motion, see the same rate of increasing discrepancy of
> tick counts?

No. But the answer is yes for observers at rest relative to the clocks
[#]. If not, then different observers can have variable signal delays
and different "time dilations" that affect the rate they observe.

Tom Roberts

On 12/19/21 3:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 12/18/21 4:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> To make sure we talk about the same things I give a simple experiment.
>>> Suppose we have a lab, and several optical clocks.
>>> There is one on the lab bench, and suppose for convenience
>>> that it ticks at 500 THz precisely, so at 5*10^14 Hz.
>>> (with a stability of 10^-18)
>>> Now take a second identical clock,
>>> and place it on a pedestal about one meter higher on the bench.
>>> So with a \Delta\Phi of 10 m^2/s^2. (with c^2 ~= 10^17)
>>>
>>> By everybody's understanding of general relativity
>>> (and perhaps also by yours)
>>> it will tick at a rate of (1 + 10^-16) THz,
>>> so at 5 x 10^14 + 0.05 Hz.
>>
>> This is wrong. You are presuming your own MISUNDERSTANDING of General
>> Relativity. "Everybody" does not share your misunderstanding, and
>> physicists who understand GR will disagree with your claim. Each clock
>> will tick at 500 THz, because they are identical [#].
>
> So you are in denial of observed reality.

No. YOU need to read more carefully. My statement here is NOT about
"reality" (whatever that is), but rather about GR -- just look up there
and READ WHAT YOU WROTE (to which I am responding). As I keep saying and
you keep ignoring, GR quite clearly says that identical clocks always
tick at the same rate, regardless of their location, gravitational
potential, or motion [#]. Comparing their tick rates depends in detail
on how the comparison is preformed, which invariably involves EM signals.

[#] This is a direct consequence of local Lorentz invariance.

Also, YOU are distorting what such experiments actually observe. In
particular, you fantasize that they measure clock tick rates, when it is
CRYSTAL CLEAR that they actually measure or compare EM signals from the
clocks. The experiments agree with the predictions of GR, which implies
that the (identical) clocks all tick at the same rate, and the
difference is due to the way the EM signals are measured.

>> [#] I am talking about the clocks, AND ONLY THE CLOCKS.
>> So their tick rate is their intrinsic tick rate, which can
>> only be measured in their instantaneously co-movung locally
>> inertial frame (ICLIF). In this case, since the clocks are
>> so very accurate, 1 meter difference in altitude is enough
>> to make each one's ICLIF too small to include the other clock.
>
> The clocks are at rest with respect to each other,
> firmly bolted to the same lab table.

That's not good enough. For modern optical clocks one must specify their
altitude to the millimeter (at least). And one must not fantasize that
the clock tick rates are measured, one must recognize the role of Em
signals.

> But your whole ICLIF thing is a fundamental error.

No. It is essential to understanding this. You merely demonstrate your
personal ignorance of how one analyzes this in GR.

> The difference in clock rates is NOT caused by the local gravity.

I have no idea what you mean by that. You use words in a nonstandard way.

> It is not a local effect,

Yes, for the usual meaning of "local", which involves the ICLIFs you
disparage.

> Clocks at different altitudes do tick at different rates

You need to CAREFULLY examine how those tick rates are ACTUALLY
measured. You will find that in every experiment it is not the clock
tick rate that is measured, they arrange for the clock to send an EM
signal with each tick, and they measure the tick rate of those SIGNALS.
So to discuss clock tick rates you MUST unwind any effects on the
signals -- do that and you will find that (identical) clocks tick at the
same rate. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring.

> [... confusion between world and model, and failure to understand the
> basics, repeating earlier mistakes]
There's no point in continuing until you educate yourself. Repetition ad
nauseum is getting us nowhere.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 12/19/21 6:49 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Now let me get this straight:
>
> But you don't -- your words are too ambiguous and poorly defined.
>
> > One clock is at a higher altitude, by one meter.
> > The higher altitude unit ticks faster, as observed in the lab.
> > General relativity predicts this, by "everybody's understanding".
> > But it's NOT caused by a difference in local gravity.
>
> If you want to COMPARE the tick rates of two identical clocks in the
> lab, you must use SIGNALS to transport each clock's ticks to an
> instrument at a common location where they can be compared. Do this, and
> the SIGNALS from the higher clock tick faster than the SIGNALS from the
> lower clock.

WOW, you are there at last.
Now that took you a long time.
Excercise: Now convert your verbalisms
into a correct quantitative prediction
of the differences in tick rates.
(hint: you may find it done your way in one of my previous postings)

[-]
> As I keep saying, and many people keep ignoring, this "gravitational
> redshift" is NOT due to "clocks ticking differently", it is due to
> differences in the way SIGNALS from the clocks are measured.

Apart from some minor verbal backpedalling, but still,
you did succeed in reaching the right conclusion, at long last.

And yes, you can have it your way.
Everybody sees those clocks ticking at different rates,
but you can go on seeing them ticking at the same rate,
but only in your mind's eye.
There is no more to it than to Wozniac's "and yet t = t'" mantra.

I think I will give up on you.
You are too reality-challenged.

There is no textbook of general relativity
(one that does the Newtonian limit)
that agrees with you. [1]
There is no one, who is actually involved
in accurate timekeeping with atomic clocks,
who agrees with you.
There is no one in the rapidly expanding literature
on optical clocks, frequency transfer, and relativitic geodesy
who agrees with you.

There is only you who insists
that all those actually measured clock differences
are in appearance only, because you,
living in your own reality, in your minds eye, just 'knows'
that all those measured differences must be in appearance only.

Jan

[1] Caveat: Of course I have not seen all existing GR textbooks,
but I guess I can be pretty sure that if anyone but you
seriously disagreed with Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
I would know about it.

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> If Time did not exist...would the clock keep on running?
>
> i mean, a clock doesn't actually measure...time.

There is no time, .... beyond what clocks measure,

Jan

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 12/19/21 3:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/18/21 4:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> To make sure we talk about the same things I give a simple experiment.
> >>> Suppose we have a lab, and several optical clocks.
> >>> There is one on the lab bench, and suppose for convenience
> >>> that it ticks at 500 THz precisely, so at 5*10^14 Hz.
> >>> (with a stability of 10^-18)
> >>> Now take a second identical clock,
> >>> and place it on a pedestal about one meter higher on the bench.
> >>> So with a \Delta\Phi of 10 m^2/s^2. (with c^2 ~= 10^17)
> >>>
> >>> By everybody's understanding of general relativity
> >>> (and perhaps also by yours)
> >>> it will tick at a rate of (1 + 10^-16) THz,
> >>> so at 5 x 10^14 + 0.05 Hz.
> >>
> >> This is wrong. You are presuming your own MISUNDERSTANDING of General
> >> Relativity. "Everybody" does not share your misunderstanding, and
> >> physicists who understand GR will disagree with your claim. Each clock
> >> will tick at 500 THz, because they are identical [#].
> >
> > So you are in denial of observed reality.
>
> No. YOU need to read more carefully. My statement here is NOT about
> "reality" (whatever that is),

Ah, there is your problem, or at least a major part of it.
FYI, in physics 'reality' is what the results of experiments tell you,
not the dreams of some theoretician.

You are reality challenged,

Jan

On Friday, 24 December 2021 at 12:36:30 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > If Time did not exist...would the clock keep on running?
> >
> > i mean, a clock doesn't actually measure...time.
> There is no time, .... beyond what clocks measure,

How unfortunate that it's t'=t, just like
it always was.

On Friday, 24 December 2021 at 12:36:32 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/19/21 3:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> On 12/18/21 4:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>> To make sure we talk about the same things I give a simple experiment.
> > >>> Suppose we have a lab, and several optical clocks.
> > >>> There is one on the lab bench, and suppose for convenience
> > >>> that it ticks at 500 THz precisely, so at 5*10^14 Hz.
> > >>> (with a stability of 10^-18)
> > >>> Now take a second identical clock,
> > >>> and place it on a pedestal about one meter higher on the bench.
> > >>> So with a \Delta\Phi of 10 m^2/s^2. (with c^2 ~= 10^17)
> > >>>
> > >>> By everybody's understanding of general relativity
> > >>> (and perhaps also by yours)
> > >>> it will tick at a rate of (1 + 10^-16) THz,
> > >>> so at 5 x 10^14 + 0.05 Hz.
> > >>
> > >> This is wrong. You are presuming your own MISUNDERSTANDING of General
> > >> Relativity. "Everybody" does not share your misunderstanding, and
> > >> physicists who understand GR will disagree with your claim. Each clock
> > >> will tick at 500 THz, because they are identical [#].
> > >
> > > So you are in denial of observed reality.
> >
> > No. YOU need to read more carefully. My statement here is NOT about
> > "reality" (whatever that is),
> Ah, there is your problem, or at least a major part of it.
> FYI, in physics 'reality' is what the results of experiments tell you,
> not the dreams of some theoretician.

Wrong, sorry; experiments show directly that the dreams
of theoreticians are in physics much more important than
anything else.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> If you want to COMPARE the tick rates of two identical clocks in the
>> lab, you must use SIGNALS to transport each clock's ticks to an
>> instrument at a common location where they can be compared. Do this,
>> and the SIGNALS from the higher clock tick faster than the SIGNALS from
>> the lower clock.
>
> WOW, you are there at last.
> Now that took you a long time.
> Excercise: Now convert your verbalisms into a correct quantitative
> prediction of the differences in tick rates.
> (hint: you may find it done your way in one of my previous postings)

he says SIGNALS to be used. To new beginners signals means nothing at all.