1

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 25/08/2018 02:29:06 »

Here is my first paper, now published at Journal of Space Exploration...

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/TSSE-18-2146.pdf

It's come to my attention that the link I provided is not working anymore, or maybe it never did and no-one told me (although it works ok for me, scratches head).

In anycase here is a link to the text version of my paper

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/remixing-the-universe-by-vikki-ramsay-time-theory-13760.html


And here is the link where the PDF can be clicked on for the full version with diagrams:

http://www.tsijournals.com/journals/journal-of-space-exploration-current-issue.html

2

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 14/08/2018 17:46:52 »

Here is my first paper, now published at Journal of Space Exploration...

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/TSSE-18-2146.pdf

3

New Theories / FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION FOR A DOABLE EXPERIMENT?

« on: 05/06/2018 22:05:02 »

FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION FOR A DOABLE EXPERIMENT

A further test of General Relativity can be conducted by comparing clocks that are ONLY experiencing a change in gravity.

So far precision testing of GR with clocks has been conducted concerning change in height in the gravity potential, where the clock is, in addition to a change in gravity, also experiencing a change in centripetal speed and centrifugal force.

And precision testing of GR has also been conducted concerning a change in relative motion, where the clock is not experiencing a change in gravity.

In Febuary this year portable precision clocks were tested for the first time.

https://www.sciencealert.com/portable-atomic-clock-measures-gravity-first-time-relativistic-geodesy

It is my suggestion that these portable clocks should be placed in circumstance where ONLY a change of gravity is occurring, in order to confirm that General Relativity is indeed correct in assuming that an increase in gravity slows time down.

This could be conducted by placing a clock at 2 different locations at same longitude, and at same height above sea level, where there is known density difference in the geology of the locations, and thus compare how they tick.
This will constitute only a difference in gravity

Or - much more simply, just place a clock at one of the gravity wave experiments and record how the clock ticks differently when a gravity wave hits, as compared to how it ticks normally.
This will also constitute only a change in gravity.

General Relativity predicts that a clock that experiences only a change (increase) in gravity will tick slower.

My modification of General Relativity predicts that a clock that experiences only a change (increase) in gravity will tick faster.*

*The consequences of the remit of my modification are, of course, extremely far reaching*

Now that these precision clocks are portable, I daresay that they are going to be used to further test the tenets of General Relativity.

I have voiced my suggestion, and will say no more.

4

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 05/06/2018 20:59:20 »

Ok - Yes I already know all of these aspects that you mention.

Clocks at sea level tick at the same rate no matter how you try to calculate it.

The point is that I am interested in calculating time dilation in another way.

I am interested in calculating time dilation in another way because SR is compatible with Quantum, but GR isn't. (And GR has it's own limitations)

Anyway, I thank you for your input. It's kind of you to take the time, but I'm not sure you understand what it is I am trying to do here.

I am going to sign off now but will include, for the record, my falsifiable prediction for a doable experiment, including the remit of the experiment and why this experiment constitutes a test of GR that has not yet been conducted.

FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION FOR A DOABLE EXPERIMENT

A further test of General Relativity can be conducted by comparing clocks that are ONLY experiencing a change in gravity.

So far precision testing of GR with clocks has been conducted concerning change in height in the gravity potential, where the clock is, in addition to a change in gravity, also experiencing a change in centripetal speed and centrifugal force.
And precision testing of GR has also been conducted concerning a change in relative motion, where the clock is not experiencing a change in gravity.

https://www.sciencealert.com/portable-atomic-clock-measures-gravity-first-time-relativistic-geodesy

In Febuary this year portable precision clocks were tested for the first time.

It is my suggestion that these portable clocks should be placed in circumstance where ONLY a change of gravity is occurring, in order to confirm that General Relativity is indeed correct in assuming that an increase in gravity slows time down.

This could be conducted by placing a clock at 2 different locations at the same longitude, and at the same height above sea level, where there is a known density difference in the geology of the locations, and thus compare how they tick.
This will constitute only a difference in gravity.

Or - much more simply, just place a clock at one of the gravity wave experiments and record how the clock ticks differently when a gravity wave hits, as compared to how it ticks normally.
This will also constitute only a change in gravity.

General Relativity predicts that a clock that experiences only a change (increase) in gravity will tick slower.

My modification of General Relativity predicts that a clock that experiences only a change (increase) in gravity will tick faster.*

*The consequences of the remit of my modification are, of course, extremely far reaching.

However I just cannot do this trying to make people understand what it is that I am saying anymore.
Now that these precision clocks are portable, I daresay that they are going to be used to further test the tenets of General Relativity.

I have voiced my suggestion, and will now say no more.

Thank you.

5

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 05/06/2018 13:25:11 »

@Janus. I think you misunderstand my purpose.

I am quite simply interested in calculating time dilation using both the 'relative motion' and the 'gravity potential' equations in order to arrive at a 'contant rate of time' for sea level at each longitude of the equatorial bulge. (this being on basis that the equatorial bulge constitutes both changes in height and changes in speed occurring simaltaniously)

That is all I am interested in. You have said that 'adding in' the 'extra mass' of each increase in the equatorial bulge would require some additional calculation.

I am saying that 'if you add in' that extra mass that contitutes an increase in height of the bulge from poles to equator, where an aspect of +mass=time goes slower (conventional GR remit) must now be added to the calculation - this will NOT, under the conventional means of calculating, result in a constant rate of time at sea level of each longintude of the equatorial bulge.

You may tell me that my understanding is amiss somehow and 'show me how' adding in the extra mass under the remit of +mass=time goes slower WILL result in a constant rate of time at sea level of any longitude...

***In which case I will then AGREE with you that there isn't any necessity for a modification of GR.***

6

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 03/06/2018 22:26:33 »

So where the GRACE anomaly map shows red at top of mountains, and it states that anywhere red is showing a stronger gravitational acceleration, are you saying that that the red areas are not showing stronger gravitational acceleration?

I am aware that gravity potential is calculated as a 'theoretical calculation' assuming a homogeneous perfect sphere, and @Janus has shown how there are 2 methods of 'conventionally calculating' time dilation, but that they cannot be used together.
He said:
"As far as tangential speed and "centrifugal force" go you can calculate time dilation using either one, but not both.  If you are calculating it from an inertial frame, then you use tangential speed, If you are calculating it from the non-inertial rotating frame, then you can use the potential due to the apparent centrifugal force.  What you cannot do is combine their effects, because they are just two ways of looking at the same thing."

But our Earth is both rotating and has gravity anomalies that differ from the conventional 'gravity potential'...
...And what I want to do is to calculate the rotational aspects of relative motion time dilation, and the gravity potential anomalies aspects of time dilation together, because that is what we observe occurring on our planet.
...And I want to do this as a modification of general relativity where the factor of the gravity that clearly holds a clock to the top of a mountain 'is' included. This being because this extra gravity holding the clock to the mountain against the centrifugal force 'is' a factor that exists, isn't it?

Edit: I just looked at the GRACE gravity map again, and it clearly show red at the top of mountains, and it show a graph that suggests that red is equal to stronger gravity. I can't be reading that wrongly, can I?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment#/media/File:Geoids_sm.jpg

7

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 02/06/2018 20:26:59 »

So - given that GRACE shows that gravity is stronger at top of mountain than in valley, can we all agree that despite how time dilation is conventionally calculated via weaker gravity at the top of mountain, the clock is actually 'feeling' stronger gravity at the top of the mountain than in the valley?

8

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 26/05/2018 19:42:30 »

In addition to post above:

So - in order for an attempt at examining/calculating under differing remit, it is important to recognise all the aspects at play here:

1/ The GRACE experiment itself, in determining the lead craft as accelerating in the stronger gravity, is bouncing electromagnetic radiation off the leading craft. That electromagnetic radiation 'should' (according to GR) be moving at a slower rate, in the slower time, in the stronger gravity.
This, of course, would account for the electromagnetic radiation taking longer to return when it is bounced off the lead craft over the mountains. But I hardly think for a minute that the GRACE experimenters will have neglected to account for this factor in stating the lead craft as 'moving faster' over the mountains...?

2/ Gravimeters display gals per cm per second squared.

A second squared up a mountain is different to a second squared in the valley. An up a mountain shorter second squared may affect magnitude of gals per cm measurement.
Where GRACE finds stronger gravity over a mountain, a gravimeter at top of mountain is 'potentially' measuring via a shorter second squared, as compared to a measurement in the valley and this will amount to less gals per cm per shorter second squared.

('If' the gravimeter interpretation of a second 'is' affected by it's position in the gravity potential, this aspect should account for a percentage of the gravimeters measurement of weaker acceleration, and interestingly (I think) in the negative 'could' be used to account for an internal tension (in atom) that 'causes' a downward attraction, (ie: gravity)
This being because if one views the opposing tensions of gravity versus 'centrifugal force and centripetal speed' as a tensor for electron frequency, and electron frequency as a tensor for the frequency with which a magnetic moment occurs, (where a more frequently occurring magnetic moment causes a greater downward attraction) then all this description is lacking is a tensor between electron frequency and the strong and weak forces, where this approach may (I think), describe the internal timing of time crystals as well as the internal timing (electron frequency) of any atomic structure, incuding the different atomic structures used as time keepers in different types of precision clocks, where any atomic structure will then increase it's internal timing in the higher GP)

9

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 26/05/2018 19:32:10 »

An oblate spheroid adds an additional complication.  First consider the scenario with no rotation.  This can be look at a like a spherical body with a world girdling "hill" around the equator.  In this situation, walking from either pole to the equator is walking "uphill" and you are moving to a higher gravitational potential, where clocks run faster than they do at the poles.  If the "hills" were mass-less then you could use the simply version of the gravitational time dilation equation to work out just how much faster. 
But since they aren't, it is a bit more complicated.  The way the mass is distributed will have an effect, and it would take a bit of additional calculation to work out just how much difference this will account for.

If the Body is rotating and had no gravity, then someone moving from pole to equator would be effectively moving "downhill" to a lower potential causing clocks to run slower at the equator than at the poles, since the tangential speed is greatest at the equator.

If, as we have with the Earth, both effects are in play and the degree oblateness is due to the combination of the Gravity of the body and its rotation due to the plasticity of the body, we get the case where these two time dilation effects combine in such a way that all clocks at mean surface "level" run at the same rate.  ( if the surface is bumpy), you'll get variations between depressions and rises.)

As you say, in adding the mass considerations of an oblate spheroid, that is also rotating (has in fact been caused by roatating), matters become more complicated than 2 time dilations cancelling each other out. And because our equitorial bulge consideration is oblate and rotating there would seem a little more finess to the reality that 'could' be examined.

My point here is that if one sets up a spinning wheel with 2 identical objects attached by string to the wheel - where 1 string is longer than the other - then the object on the longer string will travel at a greater speed, the outward force will be stronger, and the longer string will 'feel' a greater tension, than the shorter string.

GRACE is showing us that while our gravimeters 'on' the mountain register lower 'inward' gravitational pull, that gravity up a mountain is much stronger than in the valley.
Stronger gravity is supposed (not proven) to slow time down. Increased centripetal speed (relative motion) is proven to slow time down.
So at the top of a mountain there are 2 aspects (conventional physics) slowing time down.
It is proven that a clock ticks faster at the top of the mountain.
The 'conventional calculation' say that this is due to the weaker gravity that the clock feels at top of mountain (as per our gravimeters).

I am saying (as per GRACE) that the clock is not 'feeling' less gravity at the top of mountain. If it were feeling less gravity it would fly off the top of the mountain with the extra centrifugal force at that height.

So departing from 'how' conventional maths for time dilation are calculated...
What I see is the possibility that the clock/mass at top of mountain is 'feeling' a tension caused by two opposing forces. The inward pull of stronger gravity, and the outward push of stronger centrifugal force.

It would appear to me that with regards to our 'real life example' of time dilation on earth, which is  a non spherical/rotating example, that the 'conventional calculations' are considering that increased centrifugal force is the same thing as weaker gravity.
If the 'conventional calculations' factor in the total gravity at top of mountain, this slows time down, as well as the increase in centripetal speed slowing time down. It is then centrifugal force alone that speeds time up.

And, as I said in last post, adding gravity will decrease the outward centrifugal force, causing a 'minus centrifugal force' aspect to the calculation where added mass is causing height. (equatorial bulge)
This elicits 3 aspects that cause slower time versus 1 aspect that causes faster time, so 'conventional maths' cannot include the 'extra gravity' that the centrifugal force is opposing, because clocks will not run at same rate at sea level under a 3 aspects cause slower time and 1 aspect causes faster time remit.

That is why my theory suggests that adding gravity (adding mass) causes time to go faster, and minus centrifugal force causes time to go slower, where height is adding centrifugal force causing time to go faster, and increased centripetal speed at height causes time to go slower.
Now, with 2 aspects causing time to go faster, and 2 aspects causing time to go slower, these aspects 'can' cancel for same rate of time at sea level of every longitude of the equatorial bulge.

What I am suggesting @Janus is a different means of calculating the same observations.

My description (theory of +mass, or gravity = time goes faster) explores an alternative. An alternative that actually goes on to describe physical cause and effect mechanics (as an alternative to space geometry that is curved) for 'why' GRACE moves faster over the mountains...
...And provides a falsifiable prediction for a test of general relativity, where a precision clock can be placed at LIGO to undergo conditions (when a gravity wave hits) that do not incorporate a change in centrifugal force via hieght, and do not include a change in centripetal speed, but only include an addition of the gravity of the wave for the duration of the hit.

General Relativity predicts that clock will run slower.
My theory predicts that clock will run faster.

My theory is saying that the centrifugal force itself is having an effect on the clocks in addition to gravity having an effect on clocks.
Relativity considerations are saying that centrifugal force has an effect on gravity, and that gravity effects the clocks.
Relativity says that GRACE is travelling in slower time over the mountains in the stronger gravity, and that the acceleration is curvature related.
My theory is saying that GRACE is travelling in faster time over the mountains in the stronger gravity, and that the acceleration GRACE feels is due to the faster rate of time.

That is my theory.
(yes, this theory can describe grav.lens)

10

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 23/05/2018 19:09:19 »

So going up a mountain:

1: +height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster
2: +mass = - centrifugal force = time goes slower
3: + mass = time goes faster
4: + centripetal speed = time goes slower

= 2 faster, 2 slower

Time running faster up a mountain (compared to sea level) being (as per my theory) due to:
less additional mass per extra height = less -centrifugal force

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 22/05/2018 00:04:15 »

OK - so @Janus, I haven't been able to find anyone to run me through the exact mathematics of the equatorial bulge, but have come up with some equatorial bulge considerations:

+relative speed, or centripetal speed = time going slower.

-minus relative speed, or centripetal speed = time going faster

+centrifugal force = time goes faster
-centrifugal force = time goes slower

higher GP = +centrifugal force + centripetal speed = time going faster

lower GP = -centrifugal force -centripetal speed = time going slower

+mass = time goes slower
-mass = time goes faster

Equatorial bulge sea level - Conventionally:

1: +mass = time goes slower
2: +height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster
3: + mass = -centrufugal force = time goes slower**
4: +centripetal speed = time goes slower
= same rate of time at sea level each longitude.

=slower, faster, slower, slower

= 3 slower + 1 faster


without bulge:

+height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster
+ centripetal speed = time goes slower
= time goes faster

So +mass of equatorial bulge = time goes slower cancelling time going faster = same rate of time at sea level each longitude

Here we are saying that +mass is the same as -centrifugal force?

--------------------------

At this juncture I am now swapping over to this thread on New Theories in order that I may talk further on this subject outside of the remit of Physics Board speak...

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg542632#msg542632

12

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 22/05/2018 00:01:16 »

@Colin2B, I am just making use of this thread here to further discuss under the freedom of 'New Theories' a subject that I started on Physics board that @Janus was participating in here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73266.msg541684#msg541684

Where I am trying to get to grips with the equatorial bulge. (Back to Shapiro Effect with you as and when you are up for it)

----------------------------
So repeating the consideration from that thread:

+relative speed, or centripetal speed = time going slower.

-minus relative speed, or centripetal speed = time going faster

+centrifugal force = time goes faster
-centrifugal force = time goes slower

higher GP = +centrifugal force + centripetal speed = time going faster

lower GP = -centrifugal force -centripetal speed = time going slower

+mass = time goes slower
-mass = time goes faster

Equatorial bulge sea level - Conventionally:

1: +mass = time goes slower
2: +height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster
3: + mass = -centrufugal force = time goes slower**
4: +centripetal speed = time goes slower
= same rate of time at sea level each longitude.

=slower, faster, slower, slower

= 3 slower + 1 faster


without bulge

+height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster
+ centripetal speed = time goes slower
= time goes faster

So +mass of equatorial bulge = time goes slower cancelling time going faster = same rate of time at sea level each longitude

Here we are saying that +mass is the same as -centrifugal force.

------------------------


Now under my theory everything is the same except:

+mass = time goes faster
-mass = time goes slower

Equatorial bulge sea level:

1: +mass = time goes faster
2: +height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster
3: + mass = -centrifugal force = time goes slower**
4: +centripetal speed = time goes slower
= same rate of time at sea level each longitude.

= faster, faster, slower, slower

= 2 faster, 2 slower.

without bulge

+height = +centrifugal force = time goes faster + centripetal speed = time goes slower
= 'time goes faster'

So +mass = time goes faster and +mass = -centrifugal force = time goes slower
= 'time goes slower'.

Add the above two together and 'time goes faster' and 'time goes slower' cancel
= same rate of time at sea level each longitude.

Here I am saying that + mass and -centrifugal force are NOT the same thing!

Now because where there is more mass/gravity, 'time goes faster', this gives a physical cause and effect description of why GRACE moves faster over the mountain than over the valley.
(This theory can be tested by placing a precision clock at LIGO to see how the clock ticks when a gravity wave hits.)

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 10/05/2018 18:40:08 »

Anyway @Janus
To wrap up my GRACE observation, it is interesting that if one inverses the GRACE gravity map so that there is weaker gravity at top of mountain - then the faster rate of time in weaker gravity describes the acceleration GRACE observes...(Bc an object's speed will be increased by an increase in the rate of time)

But this does leave one scratching one's head as to why there is weaker gravity at position of greater depth from surface to center earth.

Clearly, as you have outlined in above posts, at ground level earth, the centripetal force will have an effect on the amount of downward attraction that a body feels, and this contributes to a weaker gravity at the top of mountains due to extra centripetal speed at the greater height.

Without the factor of centripetal force, GRACE is showing us the opposite.

Again I find myself straight back to wanting to know 'the percentage' by which the slowing of time due to centripetal speed, and 'the percentage' by which the slowing of time due to stronger gravity field, are together responsible for cancelling out the speeding up of time due to weaker gravity at height - with respect to time being uniform at sea level of evey longitude of the equatorial bulge...

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 23:06:28 »

The only way to measure g at a point, is to take a gravimeter there.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

"As the lead satellite passes over an area on Earth of slightly stronger gravity, it detects an increased gravitational pull and speeds up ever so slightly, thus increasing its distance from the trailing satellite. Conversely, the lead satellite slows down when it passes over an area of slightly weaker gravity, decreasing the distance between the two satellites."

Nothing to do with a gravimeter, and everything to do with gravitational acceleration at that location.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 21:13:27 »

GRACE Consists of two satellites following each other closely in orbit.   The gravitational variations are mapped by carefully measuring how the distance between the two satellites change as they pass over different points of the globe.   This tells the satellites how much the Earth's gravitational field varies.  And this variation is what the map represents.  It is not a map of how local gravity changes at local ground level.    You could work this out from the Grace data and the topological data, But Grace doesn't, because that's not what the research is about, but rather the general "shape" of the Earth's gravity field.  It is about how mass distribution caused by a number a factors (crustal thickness and density for example) effects the measurement of g from point to point on the Earth,  Without worrying about the local changes due to local altitude.  In the case of this study, those variations in " on the spot" measurements in g caused by differences in altitude at ground level is noise to be ignored in order to get to the more interesting data underneath. 

So when I look at the GRACE gravity map, if I want to know local gravity on top of the Andes I need to take on board that actually gravity is weaker at the top of mountains and stronger in the valleys, and that the reality of gravity on the ground is (kind of) the inverse of what GRACE data shows... Gotcha.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 19:19:43 »

I am saying that GRACE is not measuring the strength of gravity at the mountain top or valley floor, but the strength of gravity at the altitude of where GRACE is and to determine the actual local strength of gravity at the Mountain top or valley floor, you do have to take into account fact that gravity falls off by the square of distance and that the valley floor is closer to the center of the Earth than the Mountain top.

Ok - I will take what you say on board - but if I imagine how GRACE manages their data it kind of goes like this:

Got a gravity reading.
Where are we?
What distance to surface?

Use of square (? terminology check "as opposed to inversed square") places gravity strength at top of mountain as ? Places gravity at bottom of valley as?
But perhaps my imagination doesn't serve me well, and I am mistaken?

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 19:04:18 »

Since sea level automatically follows the surface of equipotential, clocks at MSL would be subject to the same equipotential, and would run at the same rate.  So the reason why sea level settles where it does, and why clocks at this level all run at an equal rate is one and the same.

Ok - yes I understand this. But what I'm looking for is the mathematical division or percentage of which time effect is doing what.

As the equitorial bulge gets higher, (at sea level) there is more mass between clock and centre of earth. GRACE shows where there is more mass between centre of earth and surface as red. (stronger gravity)
As the equitorial bulge increases in height, clocks will tick faster due to elevation, but slower due to increased centripetal speed (yes I know, minute differences), and the result is that clocks tick at same rate at each longitude (sea level) from pole to equator.

What I want to understand is by how much does the increased 'mass' between centre of earth and surface (equatorial bulge) contribute to cancelling out the increase in time due to the increase in height* - With respect to how much the increase in cenripetal speed caused by the increase in height (causing a slowing of time) contribute to cancelling out the increased tick rate that is due to the increase in height.
(*we observe that raising a clock 'without' increasing surface height will also increase a clocks tick rate)

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 18:38:53 »

If anyone would care to relate this question to the observation of time at sea level at the longitudes of the equatorial bulge?

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 18:27:45 »

No, it doesn't.   GRACE is measuring the local field strength at a fixed altitude.  From this, you could calculate the field strength at any other fixed altitude (say, Mean Sea Level).   This means that the map does not represent the value of g at the actual physical surface,  But the difference in measured g at the same altitude for different parts of the globe. 

So are you saying that when GRACE takes these measurements over the top of the mountain (or valley), that gravity is not reducing by the inverse square law within the distance between the mountain top (or valley) and GRACE's position of altitude?
That gravity is somehow weaker at the mountain top than GRACE actually reads, and stronger in the valley than GRACE actually reads?

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are clocks ticking faster where gravity is stronger?

« on: 08/05/2018 17:01:14 »

Ok, well these rocket considerations are fun to think about, but while launching a rocket from Western Australia is possible, launching a rocket from top of Andes or centre of earth are improbable.

I'm more interested in how GR time dilation and relative motion time dilation cancel at sea level of every longitude of the equatorial bulge, and how that relates to the increase of mass of the bulge, bc this will have some bearing on the question I am asking.

you have said:

GR predicts that, despite the fact that g is slightly higher in the Andes vs. Western Australia, a clock in the Andes runs slower. And this is what we measure with real clocks.

I'm quite sure that this part of your post is a slip of the tongue, because a clock in the Ande's is higher than a clock in Western Australia, and the clock in the Ande's ticks faster. This is what we measure with real clocks.