@freemo As you are not a Physicist, where did you obtain a master atomic clock and several mobile atomic clocks from?
You need the master obviously, and you need more than one to take to the mountain, and another as a control piece....
So how loaned you these clocks, personally? Which mountain?

You are aware of course that atomic clocks are NOT that accurate, right? Two IDENTICAL atomic clocks sitting side by side in a lab, WILL NOT stay in sync.
A mobile atomic clock is not considered very accurate at all compared to a fixed clock.
ALL the master and copies around the world need TUNING and adjusting all the time... so how the hell could you discover anything at all about General relativity's claim that time goes faster at altitude, when you had to move and transport that several clocks all about the countryside, with is going to fuck up their timing, considering we are trying to measure two tenths of sweet fuck all?
Is the ANY experiment ever done to support einstein that does not involve a practically near zero result, or is happening on the other side of the universe? Any?

@zeccano Well this was an experiment did several times over, it wasnt a single trip. But for the most impressive trip was when we took one up to the grand teton's Two-peak mountain.

I have access to a lot of hardware, and did the experiment many times with different hardware. At first it was loaned hardware, later hardware I owned and use for my EE work (unrelated to these experiments). So luckily I had ready access to several atomic clocks for a few years before selling them since I no longer need it for the work I do currently.

As for the accuracy, the accuracy and maximum deviation is known and easily confirmed. The variation is extremly small much.

Moreover if this were simply random deviation, a fine (though incorrect) assumption then it would be easy to distiguish. A random variance would be the same and inconsistent between trips at high altitutde and low. In both cases it would deviate in either direction.

Even if this wasnt true and there were some effect that made speeding up and slowing down as a mechanical problem specifically due to air pressure or something, then we would still expect that the results would not match exactly with the predictions of SR. Yet in every test, dozens of times, the results were always nearly exactly what you expect according to SR/GR

None of your dismissal or explanations seem to be able to explain away this.

@freemo What was the altitude of the master clock, and the altitude of the mountain location, and what discrepancy did you record? Considering relativity, what was your calculated discrepancy?

@zeccano My science labs and notebooks are in my USA home, I'm currently in my europe home. So I dont currently have my lab notes on me. However you'd be better served looking at actual peer reviewed papers done under scrutiny. My results were the same, but it was done more for fun and personal validation than anything, and of the thousands of actual journal papers will go into far more detail for you.

I can take pictures of my lab notebook if your curious though next time im at that home, but again the peer-reviewed data here is going to use even more expensive equipment and controls anyway.

You were the one who seems to think you can disprove his theory despite the fact that everything we do appears to agree with it...

Its been over a day now, if you think you have some way of disproving his equation as accurate im all ears...

@freemo Yes, I am very interested in seeing some data on your clock test. But as you cant provide just now, at least you can do me the favor of calculating quickly what einsteins equations say the time difference will be between say, sea level and the top of grand teton?
later, please do that some pics of your notes and findings, and post them here, or alternatively send to my email. zeccano@protonmail.com

@zeccano Ahh sure, yea I think we can go through that equation , thats not too hard to calculate that part, just need to check what the exact altitude was where I did it

It will be very small number, but much smaller than the rated accuracy of the atomic clocks, if that is what you wish to check.

@zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

\(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} \)

If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

@freemo Good, thanks, now for how long did you stay on that mountain top with the clock?
And am I right, you used a helicopter?

@zeccano No helicopter, it was a jeep equiped with snow tracks. was a 2 week trip.

@freemo OK getting more interesting, thanks for responding, i appreciate it. But now my wife will kill me if I dont go sort out the chickens and go the the shop. its 10am here.

@zeccano enjoy

@freemo Ok, chooks fine.
Here is an interesting thing about any measurable effect on atomic clocks with altitude.
(ill pick up the stuff about your mountain holiday later, when I can digest the info)
So, GPS atomic clocks are adjusted to tick at a slower rate than the master clocks on earth.
But, whats happening exactly with GR's claim about clocks are running faster with more altitude?
Is it TIME running faster? or just the clock malfunctioning?
The atomic processes occur at a different rate because they are not under the same physical conditions, less gravity, so the atomic radiation is a hight frequency.
Cesium atom frequency is 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, and that rate is now what is defining how long a second is.
(no longer defined by dividing solar cycles into smaller segments)
But TIME in the fullest sense is NOT about atoms vibrations. Its just an accurate way to count rhythmically.
So my statement is: When they have a clock in space running faster, its not needing adjustment due to TIME changing up there, buy only because the atomic process reacts differently to the physical effects of differing gravity. If you could build a clock that was demonstrably un- effected by gravity, then there would not need to be any fiddling with the clocks on the GPS would there?
Time has not changed with gravity only clocks change.
The clocks malfunction under differing gravity. Time is not affected by gravity or motion.

@freemo
and with those atomic or now optical clocks, they say they only loose a second in a billion years.. the thing is, how would you know?
The physical processes may be changing in the atomic scale, slowing, speeding up and there would be no way to know..
When they make an atomic clock and say its the most accurate... but by the standard of what BETTER clock can they say this?

@zeccano
You are really graping at straws.

Two ways we know. First, the clocks remain in sync. Error is random so if they were less accurate than stated we would see sub nanosecond drift over short time periods.

Second if the issue you suggest was simply clock error then the error woukd be random and not be in near exact agreement with einsteins equation every single time and in every experiment.

@freemo Great, This is all good info for me.
And yes, I'm not skilled at math, however the stupid questions I asked you, being as how you are the only person I have come across that personally tested something, are the questions I would ask a professor during a lecture on this subject. I really dont trust people in general, and the weirder the claim, the more I am skeptical. Ill push as hard against authority whether it be from government or science, because there is no such thing as a incorruptible in any human endevour.
So we have confirmed differences in your clocks. And the differences are withing the reasonable error margin according to einsteins equation.
Which is just based on Lorentz work.
Now my question is:
Considering that a correct result from math calculation is not necessarily meaning that the hypothesis is correct, (it just means the equation is able to mimic fairly closely the results we get from direct measurements) .. then its not unreasonable to suggest that this affect of clock discrepancy is due simply because gravity effects the atomic process in the clock, and its not time that changing but just a local force preventing the clock from functioning normally.
After all, the equation does not involve any "spacetime", its the same basic equation that Lorentz developed for time and distance and mass changes due to relative velocity.

It has nothing to do with Einstein's GR field equations.
So how come a velocity equation is able to be used directly in a problem that has nothing to do with motion?

So is there something I missed here?

And Im talking with another guy on a forum, who says that spacetime is only a curved model of reality, its non euclidian , so things dont fall freely like they do in eculidian space.
But how come everything we see here ion earth s euclidean, but it somehow changes a few miles up? How high do you have to go above earth to find the place where euclidean stops and curved spacetime starts?
If everything is non Euclidean, then 99 % of all physics and astronomy, cosmology is wrong.
We calculate the distance to stars and the positions of stars according to Euclidean geometry and laws, so all these results are totally wrong. Even the example of starlight being curves as it passes the sun as in Eddington's experiment relies totally on euclidean geometry which is wrong.
So what the deal with spacetime?
It seems to me to be much more likely that everything is exactly how it appears, its all Euclidean.

What is the actual reason to consider that out there it could be totally different than here, whats the rationality behind the concept of non Euclidean space? Why would anyone decide its a good idea? We see no evidence for it, that made people realize that it just cant be Euclidean? Did we?

It all came from only math, right?

@zeccano TYhere is nothing wrong with asking questions, or even doubting asserted truths until you understand them.

What I'd recommend though is rather than assuming things you dont understand from some authority to be false, recognize it is perfectly ok to say "I dont know because I dont have the information yet". We shouldnt be afraid to say we dont know.

So to answer your question about "well how do we know that the gravity just doesnt effect the clock in a predictable way that winsteins equation is fitted to"... well we have to realize two things..

1) while in isolation this may be possible we have to realize it is at least a very odd coincidence and unlikely to happen very often, considering the equation was not arrived at through trial and error.

2) we confirm the equation in other ways, using other equipment that works in entierly different ways and it still agrees with the equation. One coincidence may be possible at a strech but for them all to be a coincidence is unreasonable.

For example we can also do this test using velocity difference rather than gravity difference. Considering there is no sensor that exists that could measure velocity internally (without looking at an external frame of reference) its unlikely this would have any effect mechanically on the clock internals. But even if it somehow did what are the chances that, yet again, the distortion would be exactly the same as the einstein equations.

Hell we can test it without even using clocks, for example by measuring length constriction or any of the other properties that dont have to do with time.

One coincidence I might buy but when all the different properties all match the equation when measures in a thousand different ways, well there comes a point you have to stop making excuses for what you see and except that it is how the universe works.

Finally the equation actually does involve "space time", you just think it doesnt because, as you said, you dont understand the math. The permiability of free space is the constant that represents space-times intrinsic quality to carry EM waves through it. This constant is at the heart of the einstein equations. In this way space-time is inherently a part of the equations as permiability of free space is an intrinsic property of space-time.

The non euclidean aspect is a bit hard to explain, your friend on the forumn isnt wrong mind you, he is right, but its a very tricky thing to explain simply because your getting into advanced math territory. But to put it simply, things dont really behave much differently in space than they do here. I think its best not to think about curved (non-euclidean) space time, not because its wrong, but only because its a very confusing way to see things when your just starting to learn this stuff.

@freemo You mention we could confirm SR using Length Contraction, but strangely this has never been demonstrated in the hundred years that its been a hypothesis and now a theory.
A theory that has no experimental confirmation?
"No direct experimental test has confirmed the phenomenon of length contraction and its direction dependent nature after almost a century"

@zeccano direct being the keyword, there are many indirect ones. and those indirect ways further confirm the equations.

Again if you want to say SR is wrong you need to replace it with something that explains thr behavior of light, what is that something then?

@zeccano If your really serious about learning this stuff here is what I recommend: Follow through the einstein thought experiments, the same one he used to derive his experiments.

I know since you dont know math this may seem overwhelming, but youd be surprised. For special relativity the math to understand it is actually **really** simple math beleive it or not. The thought experiment is also pretty simple to understand.

I think I see why this all may seem unreliable to you, you think it all came from just math, it didnt, it came from real world observable things, the math came later from simple thought experiments.

How would you feel about taking a go at understanding this for real, from the ground up? I promise it isnt too hard.

@freemo Funny, but its because I one day decided that I had the interest to understand more about things I read when I was younger, namely a National Geographic article about he wonders of Einsteins theories, (from the 1960's) that I read the English translation of Einsteins theory on Special Relativity, his 1905 paper. Then I watched every video of every lecture from the main USA universities, most involved a series of lecture videos, specifically on SR.
I also watched all the informational videos available that try to explain the theory using very nice graphics.

After ALSO reading some critical reviews of the theory, from dissident scientists, I had to decide what was correct and was must be mistake, as the two were not in agreement.
That made me go back to the 1905 paper, again, to pull it apart in detail, so that I was sure I understood it clearly.
Not being a math guy, ant it being too late for me to start, (im 64) I figured that this being a subject of Physics, it must first be explainable as physical principals, then after a satisfactory physical model is presented, the math was later developed.
The math must conform to the physical claims, we cant do physics from a math base, then look for observational evidence. The claim is that science works by first an observation then the search for an explanation followed by testing the proposed solution under varying conditions with math to support the claim, am I correct?

So with the theory of SR, exactly when EInstein proposed his thought experiment involving a light clock on a carriage, I had a problem with his model.

I made a short video explaining the problem I found. Take a look and get back to me if you want.

https://vimeo.com/295270284

@zeccano Maybe you had bad teachers, maybe you misunderstood those lectures. But the thing is, they are **not** theory first.

They take real observable things we didnt understand, explain them using simple thought experiments, apply the math based on those thought experiments, and find it to be correct.

Since we have tested it and know it to be correct, then if you dont understand it, then it is a failure somewhere in that process of understanding. At least until you can think of a way to do an exoeriment to contradict it.

I will watch the video, but I think your just missing some understanding.

Let me start with a simple question: What is the physical observation about the universe we saw, that was unexplained at the time, that einstein was able to explain with his theory? (if you dont know I will explain, but i think this may be the part you are missing).

Keep in mind this can be tricky even for people who are math students.

@freemo If we are talking about GR, then it was the problem of the apparent abnormally in the orbit of Mercury.

@zeccano No, that was a problem that was solved by GR, but not the fundementally observable principle that gave rise to the need or idea.

Ill give you the answer, but pay attention closely to my words because a lot of people dont really get what is being said here and i think it may be where you went wrong.

The fundemental paradox that gave rise to relativity was this simple fact: the speed of light is a constant

That means a bit more than you probably realize it means..

If i shoot a laser down a road and me, as someone holding the laser and standing still measure it, the speed of the light will be about 300 million kilometers per second, or C.

However that isnt the weird part.

The weird part is if someone else is running along the road next to the laser beam at half the speed of light, C, if they measure that same light beam one would expect him to measure the speed of light as half of C (that would be the case if we were talking about a bullet at least right?)... but amazing that isnt what we see, instead the measured speed would also be C!.

It is this apparent paradox that needed to be solved, and solving that paradox is exactly what special relativity does.

If you dont think special relativity is real, then how would you solve this paradox otherwise?

@freemo The lectures wer by Leonard Susskind of Stanford, Professor Shankar or Yale, and A level Physics revision series by ""Dr Physics" who has a BSc (physics) and PhD (nuclear physics) from King's College, London. and others such as Lecturers from MIT.
Not much wrong with the teachers I would suggest.

@zeccano Im not saying something is wrong with the teachers in the sense that their information was wrong.

What I am saying is those teachers didnt explain things in a way that was clear to you. They clearly werent teaching you in a way that was uiseful, but this may be because you yourself didnt have the ability to ask them questions to understand

@zeccano So watched your video, the fundemental problem in the video is you assume that if the laser is stationary when it is fired, and then accelates and start moving after that this would be the same as firing a laser while under constant motion.. it wouldnt. You cant just ignore the velocity when it is fires and then account for it once the photon is in motion, it doesnt work that way.

To understand why replace the mirror with two children sitting across an aisle on a bus and photon with a ball. If the bus is going really fast down a high way and one kid throws a ball to the other, how will the ball move? will it miss the other kid completely because of the velocity of the bus or will it hit its target? Obviously it would hit its target, as long as the bus isnt accelerating.

A photon is no different in this regard and thus why your video is debunked.

@freemo The laws of Physics dissagre with your assesment of my video.
A ball has mass and is influenced by inertia. A quanta of light, a photon has no mass therefore can never possess inertia.
Even Einstein stated clearly that light is unaffected by the motion of the source. No physicist will support the notion that a photon can be compared kinetically to a physical balls motion.
It is irrivalent that the light source may be under constant motion or under no otion or accelerating motion, once the photon leaves the source, the further motions of the source dont play any part.
and the inertia of the source can not be passed on to the massless photon for the reason already stated. The photon is going to go in the direction that the laser source is pointing, and not possess any of the lasers sideways motion.
You have not debunked my video.

@zeccano The idea that a quanta of light has no mass is incorrect. There are two types of mass every object has one is called rest mass, the other is called inertial mass or relativistic mass. Usually if we talk about mass it is the relativistic mass.

The mass of light is therefore relative to its frequency, higher frequency light has more energy and since energy is equivelant to mass, has more mass.

moreover, again, experiments demonstrate all this. So while I can understand that you **think** it is wrong, and you **think** you can disprove it, becaiuse all experiments prove it to be true we know you are wrong. So instead of wasting time on an idea proven to be wrong its far better to try to understand how it must be true.

@freemo Ok, Here's why you cant use your experimennts results.
FIrst, You said yourself that the your clocks were not accurate enough to measure the very small expected discrepancy.
2. You have the clock going up and down from your home to a mountain, were you in a cabin the whole two weeks? What was the altitude where the clock was located?
Im guessing about 3 km meters. The highest mountain is only 4.3 km . I doubt there is a road to the top. but even so, the gravitational difference between your home and that mountain is very slight, and when you consider that the difference between the earth based master clock and the satellites is only 43 nanoseconds per 24 hour, and those satellites altitude is 20,000 km! And the gravitational difference is huge!
So what did you think you should see in time discrepancy after two weeks, given that with so many unknowns, you cant calculate an accurate results anyway...?
My point is that you dont have a perfect clock, you dont have a stable location for the clock, it was not at the same location for 2 weeks i am guessing.
The calculated difference is still small, and then there is the final problem of when you return, how exactly could you read the two clocks current times, in nanoseconds? You could compare maybe hundredths of a second maybe, but not nano seconds, How was that task undertaken? Even if you freeze the clocks, you need to do that with electricity, so any small difference in the electrical system, different length wire, or slightly different conducting would mean the clocks cant be guarantee to stop simultaneously, cant it? Im guessing of course, but would like to know how you did this part.
Anyway, Im still open to correction here. However its recognized that gravity changes do affect the physical processes so all you are measuring is the clock changes, not changes in TIME.
Please see this video re the abnormally of Mercury's orbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5GJCkI-bk

@zeccano
First off i never said the discrepancy was too small, quite the opposite, the difference in time is well within the margin of error.

Everything you said is complete fiction, utter fiction.. just as you made me show my own work woth math equations now lets see you do the same: what is going to be the difference in time, what is the error rate of the clock, go ahead, youll see your utterly wrong.

Moreover you failed to explain why my experiment and every other experiment exactly lines up a the einstein's prediction. If anything you just said had even a hint of truth to it void see the recorded discrepancy as random and not actually precisely consistent with einstein's equation.

And yes it was the exact same location for 2 weeks, sitting in a cabin near the top of the mountain.

Seriously man just do the math, if instead of trying to make up a narrative to fit your assumptions you had just done the math you'd see everything you just said is utterly wrong.

Cesium clocks are accurate to less than a nano second a day, easily shown by the fact that these clocks do not drift from each other by more than that amount when kept at the same altitude.

If two cesium clocks separated by 3km for 2 weeks as is the case here the expected time drift due to relativity would be 420 nanoseconds, which is **well** within the margin of error for these clocks.

Moreover the experimental result lined up exactly with both the small margin of error and the results expected by relativity. Other experiments using velocity or other factors other than gravity to show time dilation all similarly agree.

@freemo Aslo, being pedantic, I must ask the location of your master stationary clock, and which mountain you went to exactly? Dropped by Helicopter?
Have a guess as to the discrepancy you got, it must be in the back of your mind, all that effort and you forget what you discovered? And it was so interesting that you did similar experiments several times? So do tell what was the difference in time? One more thing I need to know, from the location of the stationary clock, how did you get to the mountain? by car? or did you also have free access to that helicopter as well as a bunch of clocks and plenty of free time from your electrical engineering studies... you should understand why i need to check a few things, i dont meet many people (none till you actually) that have personally tested einsteins theory.

@zeccano I already answered this, the lab notes are at my house with the labs, not with me.

Again much better and more accurate data is availible in actual peer reviewed studies, so if you want actual data with which to draw conclusions then those studies are a better source.

I certainly dont mind going into the details of the experiment with you as i remember it, but going off memory witout my notes on it probably isnt going to be as useful as using data from profressional experiments.

Please answer **my** question rather than piling on your own. IS there a reason you refuse to use actual peer reviewed experiments. They certainly agree with the numbers, do you think it is some world wide conspiracy, or is there some other explanation for the consistency across experiments?