0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When I say anomaly, I am talking about an anomaly in g, ie: the density of g differs with the geological density of the local terrain.If g differs from 1 local to the next, the gp will also differ from 1 local to the next.The Boulder site is composed of a certain geological density, and within the confines of that local there will not be much difference in geological density, so while it is possible to measure gp differences from any local, it would be hard to measure differences in g, (local density) without placing clocks at 2 separate sites of known significant difference in g, (local density).
General relativity says that clock will tick slower.My model says that clock will tick faster. It says it will tick faster because that situation is a difference in g, as opposed to a difference in gp.
Interesting scenario. Place a clock at A (source) on the left and and another at B (receiver) on the right, and have a gravity wave pass from left to right. A will initially slow down (red shift) as seen from B then blue shift as B's clock slows down,
so the net effect will be zero.
There are suggestions for a satellite network of atomic clocks to detect g waves.
Now general relativity is 'generally' calculated as gravitational mass M, but this does not take into account any 'anomaly' of g on M. Geological density is not uniform on M, and these non-uniformities are what I am referring to as 'anomalies' of g.
Yes we all know that, but you are talking about the difference between a spherical cow and a real one.
For classroom teaching it is very convenient to consider the mass of earth as uniform, but we all know that is not the real world. This is why everyone in the real world talks about the geoid and lines of equipotential, these lines vary in height depending on local density.
This means that the calculation of gp includes density variations.
However, this still doesn’t explain why your theory predicts that a clock will tick faster near an increase in g. It’s the why I’m interested in.
Are you understanding now @Colin2B?
On these maps, from GOCE and GRACE, there will be elevations from sea level that are composed of different densities of rock, and the g will be greater in a denser area than it is in a less dense area.
My experiment suggests placing a clock at an elevation from sea level on a denser location, and placing another clock at the same elevation from sea level but on a less dense location (taking into account centripetal speed differences of longitude) and measuring the difference between g. (this being a different experiment than measuring the difference in gp between 2 clocks where 1 is elevated above the other)
My theory predicts that a clock will tick faster near a bigger mass than it will near a smaller mass because of the added axiom of "+energy=shorter seconds", where the observation of a faster clock rate in the gravity potential is then calculated as per its frequency with an associated energy (that must accompany a frequency) of something like mgh/m=eEdit: Where a bigger Mass (gravitational M creating the gp) will have a greater associated energy.
additions of g to gravitational mass
When we get to pages 8, 9, & 10, this is where the description of plus and minus changes in the timing of clocks (m in relation to M) is, and I will elaborate on how that relates to energy there.
Sorry, but as we were talking about what occurs near a bigger mass, or a smaller mass, additions of g to a gravitational mass would follow additions of m. ie: increasing the gravitational mass making it bigger.
Edit: Or you might find lesser g in a location on earth that is composed of low density rock, and greater g in a location that is composed of high density rock.
The universe may be either expanding, static or contracting. In the case of a static universe nothing changes globally. For both the expanding and contracting cases the value of all contributions to individual points in the gravitational field change over time. The sources are either moving apart or closer together. Over time these gradual changes must have an influence on the waves propagation through spacetime. It is not just the shift but the change in the rate of shift that is important to take into account. I have no idea if this effect is negligible or if it has been included in calculations.
It might save an awful lot of time if you post me evidence of the experiment I suggest having been conducted a thousand times.