Summations Only

How would that work, ICANT. What is the mechanism for changing the clock frequency? Keep in mind that I am going to ask how your mechanism would affect non-atomic clocks in the same way.

If you have never read a book that describes gravitational time dilation, then perhaps you should read a bit more prior to criticizing the theory.

Actually, I mispoke and used some Newtonian when I should have described things in relativity terms. Gravity does not warp space time. Warped space-time is the basis for the effects we call gravity.But as for your Alfred style question, what type of object is my disposition that it can be affected by silly questions such as the one this is a response to?Is the wind an object? Is a light ray an object? How can a light ray be bent?

Hi No, I don't see where I made a mistake.GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface.SR predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks.1. Clock in satellite counts 45,900 ns/day more that clock on Earth's surface.2. Clock in satellite counts 7,200 ns/day less than clock on Earth's surface.3. That means the clock in the satellite counts 38,700 ns/day more than the clock on Earth's surface.So please point out my error.God Bless,

Hi No, GR predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate.God Bless,

Hi No, I have Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1920 as well as a few others by Einstein.God Bless,

Hi No, I thought gravity still remained a mystery. Wind is moving air which is made up of nitrogen 78% and oxygen about 21% and several other molecules as well.A light ray is energy. I am not convinced it can be bent as it travels in a straight line at c.God Bless,

It's very important that you word things properly, as this is leading to your confusion. No, it does not run slower. Relative to the clock on the gorund it is running slower. The clock on the satellite and the one on the ground read the same time. But, to the observer on the ground the clock in the satellite is running slower. These adjustments are made and that is why you get an accurate read out on your GPS.That's one fact not related to your other point about the gravitational field. I don't know where you're getting this but the wording is a bit confusing.It's better explain here ---> Source

quote:

---

General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones.

---

And to correct for this:

quote:

---

Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

​

For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

---

- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Not at all. Well, not a "mystery" like your leading on.Before Einstein it was believed that gravity was a "force" that pulled objects. Newtonian physics worked under that idea and it's the basis for Newton's equations - which, theequations still work fine locally.Einstein changed that idea by suggesting that it was not a force, but instead, what Newton called the "force of gravity" was actually curved spacetime. What that means is, when an object is falling toward Earth, it wasn't being pulled by the Earth's gravitational force, but instead the object was following the curvature of spacetime.It was proven that spacetime curved in the famous Gravitational Lensing experiment. Also, of course in Einsteins's filed equations, proven to work whenever we launch anything toward a specific location in space. The curvature of spacetime is accounted for.(A fun fact to point out is, SR shows us that motion is relative. So, to the object the Earth is moving to it, and to the observer on Earth the object is moving toward the Earth. Whose to say who is right? Point being though, since motion is relative, they're both right. ) No one is suggesting light can be bent. And you are correct to say that light "travels" in a striaght line, but, it also follows the curvature of spacetime when it passes a massive object. Again, this is evidenced in Einstein,s gravitational lensing experiment. So when observing the light it will appear bent as it is following the curvature of spacetime.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes, to a negligible degree. General Relativity predicts the discrepancy between the clocks and states that the disagreement between the clocks is due to the warping/curvature of spacetime. General Relativity does not say the discrepancy is a result of the effects of gravity on the atoms of the clock. That's very odd because every GPS manufacturer is aware of this effect. How much have you looked? See the talk by Kyle O'Keefe "Relativity and GPS". He mentions the curvature of spacetime on several slides. O'Keefe works on GPS systems. I don't know how you could read anything on General Relativity and not encounter the distortion of time. This would like reading about evolution and not encountering the idea of natural selection.General Relativity has as its primary idea that spacetime can be distorted or bent. That's the centre of General Relativity. Everything predicted by the theory is a consequence of that idea. You have already told NoNukes that you accept that Special Relativity makes correct predictions. In Special (and General) Relativity, time is a dimension.In the case of special relativity all predictions of the the theory follow from the idea that time is a dimension.You have somehow done a lot of reading on both theories and never seen these foundational ideas, I find that hard to believe. Are you even reading what we write?
I was explaining two separate effects, one of which, the one you quoted, causes the satellite clock to run slower. However since it is not the only effect, the satellite clock runs faster overall. No. The relative velocity time discrepancy between the clocks is caused by the effect I explained in the post. Objects moving at the speed of the satellite divide the four dimensions of spacetime up into three dimensions of space and one of time differently to how objects on the Earth would. Special Relativity itself says this. Yes. The form of discrepancy between the clocks that is called gravitational time dilation is said by General Relativity to be caused by the distortion/stretching of time. General Relativity predicts the discrepancy using the idea that time is stretched. According to the Theory of Relativity time is a physically real extra dimension. Somehow you have read a lot about relativity and missed this core fact of the entire framework.Since relativity predicts the motions of cosmological entities to very high precision, it would appear that the idea that time is a physically real extra dimension is correct, despite how unintuitive it seems to you.

From that book:And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum.

​

Similarly, the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called " world " by Minkowski is naturally four dimensional in the space-time sense.

​

The four-dimensional mode of consideration of the "world" is natural on the theory of relativityEdited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

I was trying to be kind. You got that number of 53000 ns/day by adding when when subtraction was the proper operation. You then attributed that error to me. But I neither did the addition nor implied that the two should be added.I suppose that strictly speaking, I should not have called that a math error, and should instead have accused you of lying. But I want to avoid that kind of stuff.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I asked you for the mechanism and not the label. If your answer is simply that GR is correct, we can switch to merely describing GR from here on in. But I don't think that to be your position.General relativity describes the method by which the satellite clock runs as observed from the ground requires a 38,700 ns/day correction. You have said that you do not accept time dilation. So what is the mechanism by which clocks at the bottom of a gravity well run more slowly if it is not time dilation.

Does light travel in a straight line as it passes from one substance such as water to another such as air? Do prisms, mirrors, and lenses bend light rays?I presume from your answer that you understand that energy is not an object, but that saying so explicitly would lose the argument. We can make meaningful physical statements about changes in non objects. You'll need to find another argument if you expect to do more than maintain your own self delusion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We all have that book, in a sense, because it is freely available on the internet.But I note that you do not say that you have read it, just that you have it. Your claim, as I understand it, is that you have never read of gravity being associated with curved space-time. Let's test that claim.What do you make of chapter 27 in which Einstein describes the space-time continuum as being non-Euclidean? It may be helpful to read chapter 26 first.Here is an excerpt which is relevant to the discussion.

quote:

---

In connection with a specific illustration in Section 23, we found that the presence of a gravitational field invalidates the definition of the coordinates and the time, which led us to our objective in the special theory of relativity.

​

In view of the resuIts of these considerations we are led to the conviction that, according to the general principle of relativity, the space-time continuum cannot be regarded as a Euclidean one, but that here we have the general case, corresponding to the marble slab with local variations of temperature, and with which we made acquaintance as an example of a two-dimensional continuum. Just as it was there impossible to construct a Cartesian co-ordinate system from equal rods, so here it is impossible to build up a system (reference-body) from rigid bodies and clocks, which shall be of such a nature that measuring-rods and clocks, arranged rigidly with respect to one another, shall indicate position and time directly. Such was the essence of the difficulty with which we were confronted in Section 23.

---

What does non-Euclidean mean to you?