Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

Ah. You refer to this:

OK:

No. That is not true.

The time dilation is a product of where your reference point is.

(Remember, dilatory effects are always a result of observing a different reference frame. One never experiences relativistic effects, one observes them occurring elsewhere, in a different reference frame.)

If you lived at the centre of the Earth, and never saw the surface, you would not know about time dilation. What causes you to see a difference in times is that you must look outward "up-well" at a reference point (such as a clock) nearer the surface.

Though you experience zero local gravity at the centre, you cannot escape looking up that gravity hill to the other clock.

To everywhere in the flatter universe, looking at the centre of the Earth will always be looking down the well's curve. There's no way to avoid that, therefore it will always be time-dilated at the bottom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see an astounding similarity to the 2 clocks you mention. both at the center, and it orbit.
(inside the isst for example, the clocks would be floating freely in "zero gravity", up there by the balancing orbital velocity,-- down there floating by the balanced mass in all directions. slowest clocks at the surface suffering max G. so: why with both floating clocks suspended in zero g, does one, up there, go faster, as it should and the other, inside, as green line gone south, shows slowing down even more?
In both cases floating si due to balancing accelerations. or?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How about we stick to one question at a time.

Are you satisfied that time dilation is greatest at the bottom of a gravity well?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I do not have to only see it from moment to moment. The fact that I actually lived down there , floating , in a different time regime, moved differently through time than the hard presse surface fellas, (I am floating remember), is, -- when we compare previously synchronized clocks. The different timelives we lived are recorded. it is not just a question of view points. but recorded in real seconds acc counted. or?

 

No, I like another explanation, yes, I am satisfied that mainstream science says so. Not surprisingly being unversed in the highest of that, I do not follow the logic, mired in newton on that. because
In my floating analogy, the green line should be heading north below the surface, like it does for the other floaters in the ISST.
It took real energy, acceleration to get that gravity balanced in orbit (I watched many launches).

 

Don't be a c*nt, this was a useful explanation, given in the context of the current state of the discussion.

 

I could reflect that back - no call for foul language. Even if mods are very selective over when and who they chasten for using it here.

 

I am satisfied that you understand the explanation.

Whether or not you invoke fanciful ideas of your own that contradict it, is beyond the scope of any teaching, and remains your responsibility.

Of course, it will impact responses to future questions you have - users knowing you'll simply reject their attempts to inform you.

 

well, I am still focussed now on the exception mentioned, why opposing effects of gravity, an acceleration, do not cancel at the center, but do in orbit, and how. . if we can't experience the effect of time dilation, (which of course we cant, without looking at an outside clock), still our wristwatch upon return will show we have been in a time dilation zone. clock slowed permanently. Any teaching challenged by fancy ideas is strengthened, even clarified in understanding, when diligently refuted. thank you. vert much for your work in that direction.

 

Yes. Upon return you are comparing your watch to the reference clock.
Why is that a problem?

The guy at the centre of the Earth does not experience time dilation - his seconds tick by at one second per second. It is only when he compares his watch that he sees the world has passed him by.

Wherein lies the problem?

 

yes, but only if he watches the immediate neighbourhood. Upon returning to the surface, where maximum gravity is measured, he realizes that he was in a zero gravity zone,(as the reading on his gravity meter down there confirmed) because his clock has run ahead, and still is, he is now older than the people that wisely staid firmly standing on earth. he lived one second at a time, but the seconds were not of the same length.

there is this exception mentioned in post# 351, the exception to the norm.

 

His feet do quite nicely as gravity meters. Up here, he feels pressure on the bottoms of them. At the CotE, he feels no pressure on them.

You've got that backwards. His clock is delayed.

 

That is why I like to leave the relativity reaction as an open question, but
with floating in the center, chances are, that, to answer the PO question, there is more gravity on the outside, the surface, with flattened arches a possibility.

 

You continue to mangle terminology. And therefore continue to grasp for meaningless answers.

You've dragged this out for almost 400 posts, and have dismissed all efforts at giving you an answer.

 

well I used the generic expression gravity, so: is there more, stronger of that inside the surface of an entity or outside? please specify what aspects of gravity you want to compare potential, field strength, please make a list and we will go over that. One by one. (please leave time dilation for another day, speed is involved).

It is not a drag, because viewers were still flocking and educated,entertained, and the dragging not being all my doing, what with time dilation exceptions coming into play.so:
make that gravity variety list, look from the surface inside, and up outside , and give the answer.

 

So after you being asked to provide tell what aspect you meant, multiple times, by multiple people, now you demand other do that first? What an intellectual dishonest person you are!

Then why are you ignoring me? If providing entertainment is your goal, why would you refuse to engage in exactly that with me? Is it that your goal is not providing entertainment, but something else, and you are thus a liar?

 

I do not post these seemingly unconventional views on still developing science questions to provide entertainment but I truly believe they deserve a further look, from a changed perspective, with unusual wording.
That people can be entertained by some poor soul like my being decimated by experts, is of course entertaining to some. Even, when replying to the line by line word for word critique, I never found the coherent benefit, helpful to the main theme, and of course you peppering your responses by such un-called for, off topic gems as "Liar" "morally bankrupt" does not endear you, or make your posts desirable reading. but:
In a shrinking globe, new more outside space is created all the time, filled with stronger gravity as was there before, so" is there not more gravity outside than inside?, although the total mass is unchanged (save for what is converted to energy and radiated away)? thank you.

 

Let us say originally the globe is of size R = 100 units, now it is shrunk to R = 50 units.
In such case, you are right that gravity (field or acceleration) at a point r = 75 units (earlier which was inside but after shrinkage it is outside) is higher after shrinkage. But please note, no new space is created due to shrinkage. It is like when you leave a place and go somewhere else, no new space is created.

The total mass being same is loosely used by you. At any given point what matters is the mass inside. So when R = 100 (before shrinkage) the gravity at r = 75 is less because of lesser mass between r= 0 to r = 75.

 

Then why did you say that in post #396?

And how many people now have told you that your "unusual wording" actually means your ideas are little more than incoherent gibberish?

What do you mean by "coherent benefit"?

Except that they are not un-called for. Have I misrepresented what happened? No. Is it fair to draw the conclusions I do if somebody does such things? No.

Your continued failure to adequately address these failings of yours only reinforces my conclusions about you.

Sorry, the truth can be hard sometimes.

Fail: no space is created.

Stronger gravity what? Field? Force? Potential?

More gravity what? Field? Force? Potential?

See, this is why I call you intellectually dishonest. Let me explain. It's been pointed out multiple times now by multiple people that you need to specify what you mean when you use the word "gravity" like that, and you continue to fail to do so. You clearly are capable of learning (in general), so that means you purposefully chose not to learn this. The only conclusion is that you are willfully ignorant, while demanding people answer your gibberish questions even though people has pointed out the problems with your questions. That is intellectual dishonesty.

I will answer the question, if you can pose it in a non-gibberish way. In fact, I suspect your question has already been answer multiple times in this thread, but you refuse to accept that. More intellectual dishonesty.