The Starmaker wrote:
>
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun.
>
> The question no one wants to answer is...WHEN does the time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun occur????
>
> Is it during the summer?
>
> Is it one second every other month??
>
> Is it all the 6 seconds stretch out through out the year??
>
> Is it 6 seconds in one day, then which day, on a Friday???
>
> Some time next week????
>
> When?
>
> WHEN does the time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun occurs????
>
> When?

if you look at a clock
the ones with numbers
and a big hand and
a small hand..
You cannot see
the past on a
clock, or the
future.

A clock
measures
space, not time..

and space consist of
a collection of
NOWS.

A Now is
this very Instant.

A lot of instances.

It's always Now.

What time do you have now?

Not
what time do you have yesterday?
Not
what time do you have tomorrow?

What time do you have now?

If you look at your
watch you can say...

"the time *now* is..."

You can see *now*
is this very instant
is space.

Everybody wants to know

"What time is it Now?"

maybe they have to be someplace in space
at a certain instant in space.

"You're late, where were you...you're
suppose to be here by now."

"My watch must be slow, what
time do you have Now?"

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

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>>> per year at the surface of the sun.
>>>
>>> The question no one wants to answer is...WHEN does the time dilation of 6
>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun occur????
>>
>> Huh? You have been told over and over.
>> The clock on the surface runs slightly slower,
>> (as compared to a clock out at infinity)
>> and that 6 seconds is the cumulative diference
>> over a year.
>
>
> I'm not good at math...
>
> How much is 6 seconds divided by a year? What does that come out to in
> numbers?
>

An eensy bit.

A smidge to the eleventy-seventh exponential.

A skosh less than a centismithereen.

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>>>> per year at the surface of the sun.
>>>>
>>>> The question no one wants to answer is...WHEN does the time dilation of 6
>>>> seconds per year at the surface of the sun occur????
>>>
>>> Huh? You have been told over and over.
>>> The clock on the surface runs slightly slower,
>>> (as compared to a clock out at infinity)
>>> and that 6 seconds is the cumulative diference
>>> over a year.
>>
>>
>> I'm not good at math...
>>
>> How much is 6 seconds divided by a year? What does that come out to in
>> numbers?
>>
>
> An eensy bit.
>
> A smidge to the eleventy-seventh exponential.
>
> A skosh less than a centismithereen.
>

Whoops, math error.

A skosh less than a MILLIsmithereen.

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

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:24:20 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > But in terms of changing anything about local physics processes,
> > > you're out of luck, for obvious reasons. (For the obvious reasons,
> > > consider the fact
> > > that cesium atoms do not behave any differently at GPS altitudes.)
> > Violation of First Postulate. The cesium atoms must do all things slower
> > on the sun or GR is a lie.
> >
> False. We *OBSERVE* the frequency of the hyperfine transition of
> the cesium atoms as being red-shifted, but the cesium atoms do
> not, in fact, go any slower. Nothing physically happens to the
> cesium atoms. The properties of the atoms have *NOT* changed.
>
> Sort of an analogous situation from over a century ago, with length
> contraction. Lorentz believed that length contraction represented
> a physical contraction of the constituents of matter, and so
> expected that strain from the contraction should be observable in
> experiments such as ones measuring birefringence of transparent
> objects:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace
> or measurable changes in resistance detectable by a sensitive
> Wheatstone bridge:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Rankine_experiment

Not really. For Lorentz (unlike Fitzgerald) length contraction
was not some ad hoc hypothesis.
It was something he derived from electromagnetism,
with the postulate/hypothesis that all of matter was held together
by electromagnetic interactions.
(accepting some non-electromagnetic forces only
to hold the 'electrons' together)

> Lorentz was rather chagrined that such experiments were
> persistently negative.

Again, not really. See your own Wikip page.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace>
Lorentz (1904) was already fully relativistic in this respect.
If you apply the Lorentz transformations fully and throughout,
there cannot be any observable effect of motion,
(just like in special relativity)

Lorentz and Einstein fully agreed on the results.
They differed only in how to get them, either by postulate (Einstein)
or by laborious derivation (from Lorentz aether theory)
Lorentz immediately admitted that Einstein got the same results
much faster, and easier, and with less possiblity for error,
and he supplemented Einstein with some new relativistic results.
(already in 1906)

Most people at the time
(that is, those who had the competence to follow all those arguments)
saw it that way, and hence they refered to
the Lorentz-Einstein (or Einstein-Lorentz) theory,
as in the discussion of electromagnetic mass,

Jan

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

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > patdolan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> > > > per year at the surface of the sun.
> > >
> > > The question no one wants to answer is...WHEN does the time dilation of 6
> > > seconds per year at the surface of the sun occur????
> >
> > Huh? You have been told over and over.
> > The clock on the surface runs slightly slower,
> > (as compared to a clock out at infinity)
> > and that 6 seconds is the cumulative diference
> > over a year.
>
>
> I'm not good at math...
>
> How much is 6 seconds divided by a year? What does that come out to in
> numbers?

Rules of the thumb: there are about a hundred thousand seconds in a day,
(a bit less, really) and about thirty million seconds in a year,
(much better)

Also remember that 'year' as a matter of speech, as in 'lightyear',
is always -the Julian year- of 365.25 days (exactly)
not some measured year,

Jan

On Friday, 15 April 2022 at 21:04:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Also remember that 'year' as a matter of speech, as in 'lightyear',
> is always -the Julian year- of 365.25 days (exactly)
> not some measured year,

Poor idiot JJ has decided!!! Objecting or ignoring poor idiot
JJ you will demoinstrate you're an ignorant crank!

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 April 2022 at 21:04:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Also remember that 'year' as a matter of speech, as in 'lightyear',
>> is always -the Julian year- of 365.25 days (exactly)
>> not some measured year,
>
> Poor idiot JJ has decided!!! Objecting or ignoring poor idiot
> JJ you will demoinstrate you're an ignorant crank!
>

It will certainly demonstrate that you have a compulsive reaction response
fueled by unmanaged anger issues.

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

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 2:04:12 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:24:20 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > But in terms of changing anything about local physics processes,
> > > > you're out of luck, for obvious reasons. (For the obvious reasons,
> > > > consider the fact
> > > > that cesium atoms do not behave any differently at GPS altitudes.)
> > > Violation of First Postulate. The cesium atoms must do all things slower
> > > on the sun or GR is a lie.
> > >
> > False. We *OBSERVE* the frequency of the hyperfine transition of
> > the cesium atoms as being red-shifted, but the cesium atoms do
> > not, in fact, go any slower. Nothing physically happens to the
> > cesium atoms. The properties of the atoms have *NOT* changed.
> >
> > Sort of an analogous situation from over a century ago, with length
> > contraction. Lorentz believed that length contraction represented
> > a physical contraction of the constituents of matter, and so
> > expected that strain from the contraction should be observable in
> > experiments such as ones measuring birefringence of transparent
> > objects:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace
> > or measurable changes in resistance detectable by a sensitive
> > Wheatstone bridge:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Rankine_experiment
> Not really. For Lorentz (unlike Fitzgerald) length contraction
> was not some ad hoc hypothesis.
> It was something he derived from electromagnetism,
> with the postulate/hypothesis that all of matter was held together
> by electromagnetic interactions.
> (accepting some non-electromagnetic forces only
> to hold the 'electrons' together)
> > Lorentz was rather chagrined that such experiments were
> > persistently negative.
> Again, not really. See your own Wikip page.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace>
> Lorentz (1904) was already fully relativistic in this respect.
> If you apply the Lorentz transformations fully and throughout,
> there cannot be any observable effect of motion,
> (just like in special relativity)

The evolution of Lorentz's thoughts was fairly complex, and
there are other historians on this forum better versed than myself
on this subject. But Lorentz struggled with accommodating
these results with his theory of the electron. I can't do it right
now, but a bit later I'll scan a few pages from A. I. Miller's
book.

Lorentz's equations may have been fully relativistic, but his
interpretation of his equations was, as I stated, complex.
He had a hard time letting go of the idea that the contraction
was "real", and kept piling on hypothesis after hypothesis.

> Lorentz and Einstein fully agreed on the results.
> They differed only in how to get them, either by postulate (Einstein)
> or by laborious derivation (from Lorentz aether theory)
> Lorentz immediately admitted that Einstein got the same results
> much faster, and easier, and with less possiblity for error,
> and he supplemented Einstein with some new relativistic results.
> (already in 1906)
>
> Most people at the time
> (that is, those who had the competence to follow all those arguments)
> saw it that way, and hence they refered to
> the Lorentz-Einstein (or Einstein-Lorentz) theory,
> as in the discussion of electromagnetic mass,
>
> Jan

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun.
> >
> > The question no one wants to answer is...WHEN does the time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun occur????
> >
> > Is it during the summer?
> >
> > Is it one second every other month??
> >
> > Is it all the 6 seconds stretch out through out the year??
> >
> > Is it 6 seconds in one day, then which day, on a Friday???
> >
> > Some time next week????
> >
> > When?
> >
> > WHEN does the time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun occurs????
> >
> > When?
>
>
> if you look at a clock
> the ones with numbers
> and a big hand and
> a small hand..
> You cannot see
> the past on a
> clock, or the
> future.
>
> A clock
> measures
> space, not time..
>
> and space consist of
> a collection of
> NOWS.
>
> A Now is
> this very Instant.
>
> A lot of instances.
>
> It's always Now.
>
> What time do you have now?
>
> Not
> what time do you have yesterday?
> Not
> what time do you have tomorrow?
>
> What time do you have now?
>
> If you look at your
> watch you can say...
>
> "the time *now* is..."
>
> You can see *now*
> is this very instant
> is space.
>
> Everybody wants to know
>
> "What time is it Now?"
>
> maybe they have to be someplace in space
> at a certain instant in space.
>
> "You're late, where were you...you're
> suppose to be here by now."
>
> "My watch must be slow, what
> time do you have Now?"
>

another example...

Simultaneously, it's not about the same time...

it's about the same instantences in space.

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

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > patdolan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun.
> > >
> > > The question no one wants to answer is...WHEN does the time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun occur????
> > >
> > > Is it during the summer?
> > >
> > > Is it one second every other month??
> > >
> > > Is it all the 6 seconds stretch out through out the year??
> > >
> > > Is it 6 seconds in one day, then which day, on a Friday???
> > >
> > > Some time next week????
> > >
> > > When?
> > >
> > > WHEN does the time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun occurs????
> > >
> > > When?
> >
> >
> > if you look at a clock
> > the ones with numbers
> > and a big hand and
> > a small hand..
> > You cannot see
> > the past on a
> > clock, or the
> > future.
> >
> > A clock
> > measures
> > space, not time..
> >
> > and space consist of
> > a collection of
> > NOWS.
> >
> > A Now is
> > this very Instant.
> >
> > A lot of instances.
> >
> > It's always Now.
> >
> > What time do you have now?
> >
> > Not
> > what time do you have yesterday?
> > Not
> > what time do you have tomorrow?
> >
> > What time do you have now?
> >
> > If you look at your
> > watch you can say...
> >
> > "the time *now* is..."
> >
> > You can see *now*
> > is this very instant
> > is space.
> >
> > Everybody wants to know
> >
> > "What time is it Now?"
> >
> > maybe they have to be someplace in space
> > at a certain instant in space.
> >
> > "You're late, where were you...you're
> > suppose to be here by now."
> >
> > "My watch must be slow, what
> > time do you have Now?"
> >
>
> another example...
>
> Simultaneously, it's not about the same time...
>
> it's about the same instantences in space.

this very 'instant'

this..Now

has nothing, absolutely Nothing to do with
the past or the future.

You might as well throw Time out the window.

inclucing any references to ...t in your equations.

Now, ...

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

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

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 2:04:12 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:24:20 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > >
> > > > > But in terms of changing anything about local physics processes,
> > > > > you're out of luck, for obvious reasons. (For the obvious reasons,
> > > > > consider the fact that cesium atoms do not behave any differently
> > > > > at GPS altitudes.)
> > > > Violation of First Postulate. The cesium atoms must do all things
> > > > slower on the sun or GR is a lie.
> > > >
> > > False. We *OBSERVE* the frequency of the hyperfine transition of the
> > > cesium atoms as being red-shifted, but the cesium atoms do not, in
> > > fact, go any slower. Nothing physically happens to the cesium atoms.
> > > The properties of the atoms have *NOT* changed.
> > >
> > > Sort of an analogous situation from over a century ago, with length
> > > contraction. Lorentz believed that length contraction represented
> > > a physical contraction of the constituents of matter, and so
> > > expected that strain from the contraction should be observable in
> > > experiments such as ones measuring birefringence of transparent
> > > objects:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace
> > > or measurable changes in resistance detectable by a sensitive
> > > Wheatstone bridge:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Rankine_experiment
> > Not really. For Lorentz (unlike Fitzgerald) length contraction
> > was not some ad hoc hypothesis.
> > It was something he derived from electromagnetism,
> > with the postulate/hypothesis that all of matter was held together
> > by electromagnetic interactions.
> > (accepting some non-electromagnetic forces only
> > to hold the 'electrons' together)
> > > Lorentz was rather chagrined that such experiments were
> > > persistently negative.
> > Again, not really. See your own Wikip page.
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace>
> > Lorentz (1904) was already fully relativistic in this respect.
> > If you apply the Lorentz transformations fully and throughout,
> > there cannot be any observable effect of motion,
> > (just like in special relativity)
>
> The evolution of Lorentz's thoughts was fairly complex, and
> there are other historians on this forum better versed than myself
> on this subject. But Lorentz struggled with accommodating
> these results with his theory of the electron. I can't do it right
> now, but a bit later I'll scan a few pages from A. I. Miller's
> book.
>
> Lorentz's equations may have been fully relativistic, but his
> interpretation of his equations was, as I stated, complex.
> He had a hard time letting go of the idea that the contraction
> was "real", and kept piling on hypothesis after hypothesis.

Yes, and it is really absolutely horribly difficult, in the Lorentz way.
Only someone with Lorentz' immense capabilities
could have made even a beginning with it.
And yes, he made some errors on the way.

My reinterpretation:
Lorentz immediately welcomed Einsteinian relativity,
because it provided a safe and clean way to get the right results.
OTOH Lorentz never really accepted
that relativity needed to be postulated.
He kept up the hope that it would be possible to derive it all,
in his way, from aether theory.

As it went, Lorentz and Einstein became great friends,
despite their age difference.

Jan

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:00:00 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The evolution of Lorentz's thoughts was fairly complex, and
> > there are other historians on this forum better versed than myself
> > on this subject. But Lorentz struggled with accommodating
> > these results with his theory of the electron. I can't do it right
> > now, but a bit later I'll scan a few pages from A. I. Miller's
> > book.
> >
> > Lorentz's equations may have been fully relativistic, but his
> > interpretation of his equations was, as I stated, complex.
> > He had a hard time letting go of the idea that the contraction
> > was "real", and kept piling on hypothesis after hypothesis.
> Yes, and it is really absolutely horribly difficult, in the Lorentz way.
> Only someone with Lorentz' immense capabilities
> could have made even a beginning with it.
> And yes, he made some errors on the way.
>
> My reinterpretation:
> Lorentz immediately welcomed Einsteinian relativity,
> because it provided a safe and clean way to get the right results.
> OTOH Lorentz never really accepted
> that relativity needed to be postulated.
> He kept up the hope that it would be possible to derive it all,
> in his way, from aether theory.
>
> As it went, Lorentz and Einstein became great friends,
> despite their age difference.

Although we still have some minor differences in
interpretation, now that you've clarified your position,
I no longer would state that you are incorrect. :-)

Here are the pages that I promised.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G3dvZojH9CftYxu4EBdX0dNc6uJgAito/view?usp=sharing

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:00:00 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The evolution of Lorentz's thoughts was fairly complex, and
> > > there are other historians on this forum better versed than myself
> > > on this subject. But Lorentz struggled with accommodating
> > > these results with his theory of the electron. I can't do it right
> > > now, but a bit later I'll scan a few pages from A. I. Miller's
> > > book.
> > >
> > > Lorentz's equations may have been fully relativistic, but his
> > > interpretation of his equations was, as I stated, complex.
> > > He had a hard time letting go of the idea that the contraction
> > > was "real", and kept piling on hypothesis after hypothesis.
> > Yes, and it is really absolutely horribly difficult, in the Lorentz way.
> > Only someone with Lorentz' immense capabilities
> > could have made even a beginning with it.
> > And yes, he made some errors on the way.
> >
> > My reinterpretation:
> > Lorentz immediately welcomed Einsteinian relativity,
> > because it provided a safe and clean way to get the right results.
> > OTOH Lorentz never really accepted
> > that relativity needed to be postulated.
> > He kept up the hope that it would be possible to derive it all,
> > in his way, from aether theory.
> >
> > As it went, Lorentz and Einstein became great friends,
> > despite their age difference.
>
> Although we still have some minor differences in
> interpretation, now that you've clarified your position,
> I no longer would state that you are incorrect. :-)
>
> Here are the pages that I promised.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G3dvZojH9CftYxu4EBdX0dNc6uJgAito/view?usp=sha
ring

What should be added here is that Lorentz faced a double task.
He not just had to deal with the relativity aspects,
he also had the particle properties to deal with.
This either involved nasty structure functions,
or divergencies in case of assuming point particles.

So he had to come to terms with a classical version
of what would later be called renormalisation.
Lorentz coped succesfully. (but it was difficult indeed)

Einstein did away with all those troubles
by making relativity a purely kinematic matter,
independent of any particular internal dynamics.

Jan

Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>
> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>
>
Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> > per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
> > nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
> > Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
> > now and bring us such data.
> >
> <https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.1
> 21..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf>

Yes. This one has the correct value.
Somebody picked up an error of a factor ten somewhere.
(and patdolan, not being able to calculate for himself,
just copy/pasted from some incorrect source)

The correct value is that a clock on the sun would be slow
by about a minute/year. (more accurately, by about 66 seconds)

This is much larger that the corresponding effect for the Earth.
(TAI is slow by only about half a second/year)

Jan

PS Reassurance for our Wikeeping friends:
Wikipedia has the correct value, no need for action.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> > > Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
> > > per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
> > > nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the
> > > earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something.
> > > Run along now and bring us such data.
> > >
> > https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS
> > .121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >
> >
> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence
> that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or
> near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their
> operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time
> dilation.

Nope. A spectrograph on the sun will measure the standard value.
And Yes, we on Earth will see the lines to be red-shifted.
And Yes, someone on Mars will see even more red shift,
on Pluto still more.
It is NOT due to gravity acting locally on the atoms.
It IS an effect of the overall spacetime metric.

Jan

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
>>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along
>>> now and bring us such data.
>>
>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>
>>
>>
> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
> evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
> dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--

Yes

> in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the
> sun because of gravitational time dilation.

No. That’s not what time dilation means.

>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>

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

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth.
>> Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run
>> along now and bring us such data.
>
> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?
1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>

better tune in to the BBC's latest "Ukrainian" propaganda game
*_Zelensky_Says_* - a multi million viewers game. You capitalist scumbags
know what the nazi zelenske says before saying anything.

On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>>
>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>
>>
> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.

Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.

Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.

There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>
> >> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >>
> >>
> > Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well..
>
> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>
> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.

So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds
>>>>> per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of
>>>>> nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the
>>>>> earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something.
>>>>> Run along now and bring us such data.
>>>>
>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as
>>> evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time
>>> dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry
>>> on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
>>
>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>>
>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
>
> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock
> will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?
>

Locally, yes.

But as measured from far away from the sun, say at the distance of Mars,
the ticks as received there will be slower than the ticks of an identical
clock there.

I see that this is confusing to you.

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

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 17:44:51 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>
> >> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >>
> >>
> > Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate,

Stop fucking, stupid Mike. It's 9 192 631 770 on Earth
and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. The moronic lies
of your insane gurus are not going to change anything.

On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
>>>>
>>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
>> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
>> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
>>
>> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
>> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
>>
>> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
>> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
>> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
>
> So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?

As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
affected.

We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
(less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
(10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:39:58 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 12:05 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2022 6:13 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:47:39 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 14.04.2022 22:19, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>> Bodkin, my boy, according to GR there is a time dilation of 6 seconds per year at the surface of the sun. There must be some constant of nature that will betray these six seconds when observed from the earth. Perhaps the ratio of hydrogen to helium spectra or something. Run along now and bring us such data.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1960MNRAS.121..421H&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Thank you Paul. I take it that you are entering this document as evidence that the electron transitions in iron and oxygen are time dilated at, or near the surface of the sun--in other words, atoms carry on their operations at a slower pace near the sun because of gravitational time dilation.
> >> Rather, those atoms carry on at their own usual rate, although we on
> >> earth measure it slower since we're further out of the solar gravity well.
> >>
> >> Similarly, if those atoms were to observe us, they'd see our light blue
> >> shifted because we're further out of the gravity well.
> >>
> >> There is no way to try and compare the tick rate of clocks without some
> >> sort of signalling from one to the other, signalling which is subjects
> >> to gravitational or velocity-related red or blue shifts.
> >
> > So Moroney, you and Bodkin will concede that an un-meltable atomic clock will run at the same rate on the surface of the sun as it does on the surface of the earth?
> As measured locally, yes. Remember the act of transporting it between
> the sun and earth affect measurement the same way light signals are
> affected.
>
> We already know this with GPS birds. On earth a Cs clock will tick 1
> second per 9192631770 Cs radiation cycles, regardless of whether the
> clock is aboard an unlaunched satellite or some other Cs clock. Once
> launched, the same Cs clock ticks 1 second per 9192631770 cycles LOCAL
> TO IT, but as seen from earth that clock appears to run fast. For that
> reason the clock used for earth-destined signals are adjusted slightly
> (less than 1 part per billion) so the signal is RECEIVED at the correct
> frequency, even if not TRANSMITTED at the correct frequency.
> (10.22999999543 MHz transmitted vs. 10.23 MHz received)

If both a GPS bird clock and the surface clock tick at the same rate locally, then, should that bird land the exact amount of seconds should have accumulated on both clocks when compared to each other. Correct?