The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Grumpy]

RC

"Invented" is exactly what Maxila et al have been telling YOU et al.

No, they are trying to say we invented time itself, we did not, it is not a figment of our imagination. What we invented is the way we describe that real thing(time). Map(our invented description of a second, usually based on some periodic natural phenomena), territory(the actual duration of time described by that invention). Time is not waiting around for us to invent a description before it starts doing what it does. He and Farsight are trying to claim that time does not exist or is universal everywhere. You are trying to say that time depends on events before it can do what it does(EVENT-DEPENDENT). You are all three dead wrong. Time is part of the "fabric" that is spacetime. Like the space part is made of three dimensions, time is a dimension, not a result of events, it can only be measured by events.


Events and matter exist in spacetime, it is the stage upon which all events play out. The Universe is spacetime plus those contents. The fact that extremely low energy spacetime does not allow you to measure that rate is totally irrelevant and is a personal problem, time flows at it's fastest rate when it is under the least influence of energy. And the slope of time's dilation goes from extremely energetic/time slows to a stop to extremely low energy/time flows at it's maximum rate(but since there is no spacetime that does not have energy or any single point in spacetime that can be said to be absolutely motionless, it is not an absolute rate). Since spacetime is not uniform in the amount of energy it contains, no two clocks have the same tick rate, add in speed and every frame has a different time rate. But every frame in the Universe measures lightspeed as being the value we call c. That's because time and space warp, dilate and change to make that so in all frames(this is not me claiming theory, these are observed facts, our particle accelerators weren't built for nothing, you know. While we can not yet build spacecraft that can travel near lightspeed, we can send single protons and heavy nuclei to those speeds). You can use that to then measure any other frame and determine their rates RELATIVE to yours, and then invent a description of the whole Universe. That's what the Theory of Relativity does to an excruciating degree of detail all the way back to a second after the Big Bang. Every prediction of what we would find when we were able to find it(like bent light, gravity lensing, time dilation, length shortening...)has been shown to be accurate and we are finally closing in on the last one, Gravity Waves in spacetime.

Mate, you've got to get over this disjointed posting technique. State what you mean in simple declarative sentences because what you are doing obscures your meaning more than it enlightens your audience.

Farsight

Found a better illustration.

Above we see four frames, in all four note that the blip traveling along the lines always travels at lightspeed. Now sit and figure it out.

Oh, see that dotted blue line in the lower left diagram? If that were sitting on Earth down would be to the left, that bent line outlines the bent space time of gravity and the photon is following that straight line through bent space. At lightspeed, even though the coordinate speed between the mirrors would be slower. The higher the gravity the more that line is bent, but the photon always travels at exactly lightspeed.

Grumpy

 

[Farsight]

It's an SR example. There's no gravitational time dilation. And there's nothing to figure out. You don't see light moving at a different speed when you move because of the wave nature of matter. See the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close for details.

 

[PhysBang]

It's an SR example. There's no gravitational time dilation. And there's nothing to figure out. You don't see light moving at a different speed when you move because of the wave nature of matter. See the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close for details.

Yes, see another well known crackpot for details. Do not, repeat, do not, open a physics textbook and learn physics.

 

[PhysBang]

Sorry PhysBang, but I can't use maths to show you that the speed of light isn't constant. I can't use maths to show you that there isn't any time flowing through a pair of optical clocks, and that the lower clock goes slower because the light goes slower. But if you think you can use math to show that the hare and the tortoise are moving at the same speed, be my guest:

It's nice that you are competent enough to include a gif in your post. It is not nice that you are not competent enough to try to demonstrate that the gif has anything to do with physics.

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

It's an SR example.

Accelerated frames are covered by GR, SR covers the top two, GR the bottom two. See, you know nothing about the theory you call wrong, and you don't know what you think you know. Dilation of time under acceleration/gravity is an observed fact, my diagrams show why.

The upper left diagram is what a comoving observer sees, the upper right what a stationary observer sees in a moving clock, notice the lines between mirrors are longer, light takes longer to tick, so time is slowed down in the moving frame. SR tells us that both observers see this in the others clocks and without reference to things outside the two of them, neither could determine which one was moving and which stationary. In SR all that is dealt with is Relative motion.

The bottom left illustrates acceleration from rest of a comoving observer in GR(or of a comoving observer in a gravity field), the bottom right acceleration in an already moving frame from the the perspective of a stationary observer. Notice the "adjusted"lines. Under acceleration the beam bends because between the time the photon is emitted and the time it reaches the mirror, the mirror has moved and the photon hits behind the detector. Adjusting the angle so that the photon once again hits the sensor you form an arc to the other mirror. All curved lines are longer than a straight one between the same two points, so that photon now takes longer to get to the sensor even though the photon is moving at c. Time moves slower under acceleration/gravity, light continues to move at c, just like Einstein said. In the comoving frame time is slowed down to the extent that they continue to measure lightspeed the same between the two mirrors, to the stationary observer, the light travels a longer distance at the same lightspeed they see in their own, undilated frame and the comovers are moving slower. Under GR acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity(we describe gravity in terms of acceleration for a reason, we also describe acceleration in terms of G).

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Morning, Gumpy.

"Invented" is exactly what Maxila et al have been telling YOU et al.

No, they are trying to say we invented time itself, we did not, it is not a figment of our imagination. What we invented is the way we describe that real thing(time).

Well, since you chose to address only a small snippet and ignore the rest, I have returned the compliment, mate.

In that snippet from yours, when compared to the snippet from mine, you have the essence of the problem of cross-communications due to you et al STILL getting the whole thing back-to-front.

Can you not see still that the motions/events are already existing dynamical processes NOT 'invented' by anyone?

Can you not see that it is the observations/comparisons of those pre-existing dynamics which AFFORDS US the opportunity FOR analysis construct which WE 'invent' and from which invention we DERIVE an ABSTRACT 'time/timing' MATHEMATICAL convenience graphing/comparison 'dimensional' construct for our analysis predictions construct?


The dynamics pre-exist, NOT 'invented' by anybody. The observational construct is 'invented' by US, as is the further DERIVATION abstraction of the 'time'timing' standard for further analysis/prediction via equations using the derived 'dimension' on an abstract modeling 'time' AXIS.


How many times dos it have to be pointed out before your 'preprogrammed' impressions are CORRECTED to reflect the priority of reality over theoretical overlay which ignore that reality once the 'theory' is used but NOT understood in reality terms STILL unless you REVERSE the thinking and get the things 'front-to-back' again properly, Grumpy?

No further comment needed now. It's all been said to you; and only remains for you to take a long break to rethink it out anew based on the prior reality that existed (NOT 'invented') before we abstracted a time/timing abstract/maths convenience WE 'invented' FROM that prior reality dynamics.

Listen to Maxila AGAIN properly, Grumpy, without kneejerking to standard old textbook 'comic book version' explanations which do not gel with the reality as much as you thought way back then. Cheers and good luck to you and everyone on discussing/understanding this point, Grumpy.

Back in a few days.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

Can you not see still that the motions/events are already existing dynamical processes NOT 'invented' by anyone?

Of course events happen.

Can you not see that it is the observations/comparisons of those pre-existing dynamics which AFFORDS US the opportunity FOR analysis construct which WE 'invent' and from which invention we DERIVE an ABSTRACT 'time/timing' MATHEMATICAL convenience graphing/comparison 'dimensional' construct for our analysis predictions construct?

Of course our invented descriptions and analysis thereof are artificial contructs.

The dynamics pre-exist, NOT 'invented' by anybody.

My point, exactly. And the measurements we make and the analysis we make are a map(invented description)of the territory, not the territory itself, as I have pointed out, repeatably. Relativity is an excruciatingly accurate map of the real behavior we observe in our Universe.

The real problem seems to be you just don't understand what Relativity means, or you are unaware of the evidence or it's implications. Many of the things you guys are saying are simply wrong. Everything I have posted is an accurate description of what science has found so far about how the Universe works, I'll be sticking with that.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

RC



Of course events happen.



Of course our invented descriptions and analysis thereof are artificial contructs.



My point, exactly. And the measurements we make and the analysis we make are a map(invented description)of the territory, not the territory itself, as I have pointed out, repeatably. Relativity is an excruciatingly accurate map of the real behavior we observe in our Universe.

The real problem seems to be you just don't understand what Relativity means, or you are unaware of the evidence or it's implications. Many of the things you guys are saying are simply wrong. Everything I have posted is an accurate description of what science has found so far about how the Universe works, I'll be sticking with that.

Grumpy

Then what's the beef, mate?

We agree that the 'map' (relativity and time and co-ordinate frame UNREAL things) are INVENTED and used by us to analyze the real dynamical observables which are NOT invented and from which apriori 'territory' all Relativity 'map' abstractions are derivable as 'convenient' modeling tools to interpret and predict/calculate etc what the apriori 'territory entities/dynamics' is doing across energy-space.

Which means that now (it took long enough!) you effectively agree with Maxila (great work, Maxila!) that the 'time map' entity is derived from the apriori events/motions in space and further 'abstractly represented' in our 'invented' observational/maths/analytical 'dynamical map' construct and the theories/assumptions which they are invented/developed from!

Great. That's settled then. Problem solved. Next problem.....

Cheers.

 

[Grumpy]

Undefined

Energy space is not the description of spacetime. You haven't made plain what you think it means. Energy(events)occur in spacetime(IE they occur within the three dimensions of space and they occupy a duration in the time dimension., they neither form space(though they can distort it)nor cause time's passage(but they always dilate(inhibit)it's rate of passage).

Which means that now (it took long enough!) you effectively agree with Maxila (great work, Maxila!) that the 'time map' entity is derived from the apriori events/motions in space and further 'abstractly represented' in our 'invented' observational/maths/analytical 'dynamical map' construct and the theories/assumptions which they are invented/developed from!

It is a map derived by measuring the reality, but it is an extremely accurate one that accurately describes how it behaves. An interesting but irrelevant observation. Unless it can be reached by your arms, that is how we deal with everything in this world. You think you see a tree, but you are actually seeing scattered light, does that mean the tree is not there because your model is an illusion manufactured by your brain? Maxilla convinced me of nothing, he's got a bit better grasp than you or Farsight, but he's still wrong in his understanding and many of his assertions. How many times did I post about the map and the territory? I taught this same stuff for over 30 years and I haven't told you anything different than I taught them. My understanding of the basics(if not the math anymore)is solid, my tolerance of woo is limited(but I'm trying not to draw blood)and Farsight got on my last nerve with this "no time" BS and his basing his whole understanding on an out of context quote from Einstein. Einstein, like Darwin, talked to much and too sloppily. His is a fruitful quote-mine. But as long as you stick to what he put into his theory, he knew what he was talking about, as his math shows. Every prediction he made based on Relativity has been confirmed, the last one is gravity waves in spacetime(gravity waves cannot exist without spacetime as proposed by Einstein being an accurate description of reality). And now we found them, one hundred years after Einstein said we would. A theory so accurate it made accurate predictions of things it would take one hundred years to be able to find to be true. It does not get better than that. It may not be complete(that pesky Quantum Gravity)but it is nearly so. The GUT will have to have Relativity at it's heart.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Undefined

Energy space is not the description of spacetime. You haven't made plain what you think it means. Energy(events)occur in spacetime(IE they occur within the three dimensions of space and they occupy a duration in the time dimension., they neither form space(though they can distort it)nor cause time's passage(but they always dilate(inhibit)it's rate of passage).



It is a map derived by measuring the reality, but it is an extremely accurate one that accurately describes how it behaves. An interesting but irrelevant observation. Unless it can be reached by your arms, that is how we deal with everything in this world. You think you see a tree, but you are actually seeing scattered light, does that mean the tree is not there because your model is an illusion manufactured by your brain? Maxilla convinced me of nothing, he's got a bit better grasp than you or Farsight, but he's still wrong in his understanding and many of his assertions. How many times did I post about the map and the territory? I taught this same stuff for over 30 years and I haven't told you anything different than I taught them. My understanding of the basics(if not the math anymore)is solid, my tolerance of woo is limited(but I'm trying not to draw blood)and Farsight got on my last nerve with this "no time" BS and his basing his whole understanding on an out of context quote from Einstein. Einstein, like Darwin, talked to much and too sloppily. His is a fruitful quote-mine. But as long as you stick to what he put into his theory, he knew what he was talking about, as his math shows. Every prediction he made based on Relativity has been confirmed, the last one is gravity waves in spacetime(gravity waves cannot exist without spacetime as proposed by Einstein being an accurate description of reality). And now we found them, one hundred years after Einstein said we would. A theory so accurate it made accurate predictions of things it would take one hundred years to be able to find to be true. It does not get better than that. It may not be complete(that pesky Quantum Gravity)but it is nearly so. The GUT will have to have Relativity at it's heart.

Grumpy

SpaceTIME is an abstraction, a 'map', not reality territory. I thought we'd agreed on that. Why keep reverting back to unreal things and repeating the same unreal impressions learned in the old days using those unreal things?

Once you realize that's what you're doing again and again, it will make further comment unnecessary. Just go back and rethink all that has been agreed now about what is real and what comes first etc, and then we can discuss from the same reality page. Else we'll be going in circles like this till doomsday over things already agreed are moot....but still not yet discarded from your 'replies' and 'explanations' from old textbook 'comic book version impressions' needing to be dropped if the discussion is to move on to real things.

I'll wait for the day that happens and no more old 'comic books' are harmed in the search for 'explanations' that aren't such in reality. Till then, Grumpy, stay well as can be and regards to sis and family. Bye for a few days (if I can just get outta here that is!).

 

[arfa brane]

SpaceTIME is an abstraction, a 'map', not reality territory. I thought we'd agreed on that. Why keep reverting back to unreal things and repeating the same unreal impressions learned in the old days using those unreal things?

The answer to that is very simple: if the abstractions explain reality then why shouldn't we use the abstractions? If the GPS system tells you "where you are" on the earth's surface, why dismiss that as an "unreal abstraction"? If the surface of the earth really exists, why not use an unreal map, particularly since the map is useful?

Or put more simply, we abstract such things mainly because it's useful to do so. If you're saying such constructions, being abstract, are of no real use then what should be used? What's a good way to find out where you are in relation to two poles and an equator on a sphere, that uses "reality"?

If you are saying that such abstractions are a problem since they aren't "real", then what should we use instead? That's a question you should address, otherwise be prepared for some suspicion that you have nothing as an alternative to the abstractions being used (and successfully explaining the reality).

 

[Undefined]

Hi arfa.

The answer to that is very simple: if the abstractions explain reality then why shouldn't we use the abstractions? If the GPS system tells you "where you are" on the earth's surface, why dismiss that as an "unreal abstraction"? If the surface of the earth really exists, why not use an unreal map, particularly since the map is useful?

Or put more simply, we abstract such things mainly because it's useful to do so. If you're saying such constructions, being abstract, are of no real use then what should be used? What's a good way to find out where you are in relation to two poles and an equator on a sphere, that uses "reality"?

If you are saying that such abstractions are a problem since they aren't "real", then what should we use instead? That's a question you should address, otherwise be prepared for some suspicion that you have nothing as an alternative to the abstractions being used (and successfully explaining the reality).

Please be aware that that was in context of specific scenario being discussed between Farsight and others regarding actual GR location effects on clocks/light in specific circumstances as presented. Also be aware that the attempted use of unreal abstractions like 'co-ordinate frames' by others trying to find fault with Farsight's interpretation of the local GE reality effects was, as is now agreed to by Russ and others, MOOT when the local GR real effects irrespective of abstract frame/theory overlays.

So, the context was that in this instance the theory/abstraction 'map' used by some is agreed NOT to actually 'explain' anything about the reality, and hence any 'interpretive overlays' about Farsight's scenario/as posed was effectively irrelevant and confusing at best, and at worst, distracting from the calm, straightforward consideration/discussion of the real GR essentials/effects actually involved, and no more.

Ok, arfa? No sweat; but maybe you should familiarize yourself fully with all the associated threads/discussions/exchanges on these specific matters before any further commentary possibly out of context? Thanks anyway for your interest! Cheers.

 

[Layman]

Found a better illustration.

Above we see four frames, in all four note that the blip traveling along the lines always travels at lightspeed. Now sit and figure it out.

Oh, see that dotted blue line in the lower left diagram? If that were sitting on Earth down would be to the left, that bent line outlines the bent space time of gravity and the photon is following that straight line through bent space. At lightspeed, even though the coordinate speed between the mirrors would be slower. The higher the gravity the more that line is bent, but the photon always travels at exactly lightspeed.

Grumpy

Right, so then the derivation would be completely invalid if light traveled at a different speed due to the presence of gravity. The confusion lies with it being an event dependent effect, but you don't change the laws of physics on event dependent effects. It wouldn't be necessary. You would just say their clock reads something and another clock says something else, not that time itself is a different value. Then time itself has to become a different value in order for both frames to measure the same constant "c". Then the question would be how does the clock still measure "c" even though light travels a curved path, hence GR. If the light traveling in the clock was altered to a different speed then GR would be wrong.

It's an SR example. There's no gravitational time dilation. And there's nothing to figure out. You don't see light moving at a different speed when you move because of the wave nature of matter. See the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close for details.

LOL, there is too gravitational time dilation! It's funny that you are here making threads teaching everyone about GR. Then you don't even know this. I would bet 50$ that Robert Close wouldn't be able to derive the time dilation equation from scratch. He completely skipped over the part of the derivation that would have shown him that light waves behave differently than normal waves. It is no wonder why he missed that just skipping to the Lorentz Equation to start off his derivations. Plus he couldn't possibly be a real scientist because he actually stated conclusions in his paper! Then he gave an example like it was a homework problem and actually explained it in layman's terms, lol omg.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

SpaceTIME is an abstraction

And a reality, that is the way the reality behaves, to a very fine degree. The theory of evolution is an abstraction, but evolution is a reality as well. The description of the ratio of a circle's circumference and it's diameter is an abstraction, but the ratio is that in reality. Your point?

a 'map', not reality territory. I thought we'd agreed on that. Why keep reverting back to unreal things and repeating the same unreal impressions learned in the old days using those unreal things?

Nothing unreal about their conformance to the reality we see. Good maps help you find your way around the territory. Spacetime is a model of the real Universe that is highly accurate and helps us understand why the Universe acts as it does. It is also the structure of the Universe.

Once you realize that's what you're doing again and again, it will make further comment unnecessary. Just go back and rethink all that has been agreed now about what is real and what comes first etc, and then we can discuss from the same reality page. Else we'll be going in circles like this till doomsday over things already agreed are moot....but still not yet discarded from your 'replies' and 'explanations' from old textbook 'comic book version impressions' needing to be dropped if the discussion is to move on to real things.

You do realize that Relativity is over 100 years old, that's real old school. And Relativity is just as valid today as it was when I first learned it almost half a century ago, and it continues to be valid today. Once you get it right it never goes out of style. So, no, the same illustrations Einstein used are still every bit as good today as they were when Albert took them out of the oven. You really need to learn something about the subject, it's obvious you are just hiding your ignorance in garbled rhetoric. Energy-space my big ol' butt.

Grumpy

 

[arfa brane]

Please be aware that that was in context of specific scenario being discussed between Farsight and others regarding actual GR location effects on clocks/light in specific circumstances as presented. Also be aware that the attempted use of unreal abstractions like 'co-ordinate frames' by others trying to find fault with Farsight's interpretation of the local GE reality effects was, as is now agreed to by Russ and others, MOOT when the local GR real effects irrespective of abstract frame/theory overlays.

You posted a somewhat terse description of an "experiment" with two clocks, located at different heights. How do you know your clocks are at different heights if there is no coordinate system? What kind of abstract frame does your scenario have, and what is it about GR that makes the positions of two clocks an unreal abstraction or "moot"?

Perhaps you haven't realised that you've been dissing the idea of abstraction as unreal, but also using your own abstractions, in the sense they look a lot like the ones you've been so eager to dismiss, perhaps because you know that your argument doesn't "really" go anywhere.
You abstract like everyone else does, it's an unavoidable consequence of measuring anything physical.
Actually measurement is an abstraction, right there.

 

[Undefined]

RC



And a reality, that is the way the reality behaves, to a very fine degree. The theory of evolution is an abstraction, but evolution is a reality as well. The description of the ratio of a circle's circumference and it's diameter is an abstraction, but the ratio is that in reality. Your point?



Nothing unreal about their conformance to the reality we see. Good maps help you find your way around the territory. Spacetime is a model of the real Universe that is highly accurate and helps us understand why the Universe acts as it does. It is also the structure of the Universe.



You do realize that Relativity is over 100 years old, that's real old school. And Relativity is just as valid today as it was when I first learned it almost half a century ago, and it continues to be valid today. Once you get it right it never goes out of style. So, no, the same illustrations Einstein used are still every bit as good today as they were when Albert took them out of the oven. You really need to learn something about the subject, it's obvious you are just hiding your ignorance in garbled rhetoric. Energy-space my big ol' butt.

Grumpy

Yeah, of course. But that's exactly what Farsight has been telling YOU et al. Relativity IS old, but the newer (since the mathematicians invaded the theory, as Einstein puts it himself) NON-ORIGINAL old Relativity has become incomprehensible with all the maths abstractions which took it far from the real straightforward things/insights he started with. That 'old' original Einstein Relativity is NOT the old Mathematician-twisted 'Relativity' which your old textbooks explain in 'comic book versions' based on the later overlays from maths abstractions. That is the whole thrust of what Farsight has been presenting as THE original Einstein theory, not the now 'old and tired maths abstract overlays on it by the mathematicians who 'invaded it' as Einstein bemoaned in jesting statement that had deadly serious feelings behind it. And hence the current 'woo' from abstraction that would even deny what reality GE effects Farsight has presented and others tried to AGAIN overlay with their own 'woo' of abstract co-ordinate frames when it was UNNECESSARY in that self-explanatory GR case which was being put by Farsight per the original Einstein theory/predictions as to what the real effects SHOULD BE and ARE on clocks/light in such situations in gravity wells.

Fortunately, and please mark this well so you don't 'conveniently forget/ignore' and come back with more 'woo', both Russ and przyk have effectively withdrawn their attempted abstract co-ordinate frames overlays because they were MOOT invalid arguments in the situation involved in Farsights example according to original Einstein Relativity which has NOT actually changed in reality but only in certain mathematician-woo-based 'interpretations' that are therefore MOOT in this GR-only case.

OK Grumpy? Are we finally on the same 'woo-less' page in original Einstein GR reality now? No more 'woo' from you straight out of old NON-ORIGINAL-EINSTEIN 'abstract-woo' overlain math-based abstractions 'comics version textbooks' hey?

 

[Undefined]

You posted a somewhat terse description of an "experiment" with two clocks, located at different heights. How do you know your clocks are at different heights if there is no coordinate system? What kind of abstract frame does your scenario have, and what is it about GR that makes the positions of two clocks an unreal abstraction or "moot"?

Perhaps you haven't realised that you've been dissing the idea of abstraction as unreal, but also using your own abstractions, in the sense they look a lot like the ones you've been so eager to dismiss, perhaps because you know that your argument doesn't "really" go anywhere.
You abstract like everyone else does, it's an unavoidable consequence of measuring anything physical.
Actually measurement is an abstraction, right there.

Please read Farsight's original scenarios and references to mainstream lightclock scenarios one almost immediately above the other in altitude. The reality is self-evident and no abstract co-ordinate frame considerations have any part to play in the real observable differences in altitude of centimeters difference and the consequential GR effects on respective clock rates as per cumulative tick counts comparisons.

Please, again, note that Russ and przyk have already effectively withdrawn their unreal overlay of abstract co-ordinate frames etc on what is self-evident in GR situation as per GR theory and prediction and effects locally for REAL not abstract maths/frames etc 'views'. So no need for you to go back to that irrelevant 'objection/counterargument' again.

Unless you do read through all related exchanges so far associated with this, you will be re-covering old misunderstandings and missing already agreed ground. Thanks though for your interest, mate.

 

[Aqueous Id]

James R should compare this page to page one of this thread.

Beer should take over for JamesR when he's preoccupied.

I know, I know: but then what other crash dummies would we have to bat around like a cat with mouse?

(errr. . . not me! )

 

[arfa brane]

Please read Farsight's original scenarios and references to mainstream lightclock scenarios one almost immediately above the other in altitude. The reality is self-evident and no abstract co-ordinate frame considerations have any part to play in the real observable differences in altitude of centimeters difference and the consequential GR effects on respective clock rates as per cumulative tick counts comparisons.

Note the part of your post I've underlined. My question to you, not Farsight or pryzk or Russ Waters is: without a coordinate system, how do you know one clock is above the other?
You're still doing it, saying there is a coordinate system (where altitude is defined), then saying there isn't, or it "has no part to play".
You appear to be oblivious to the obvious contradiction.

 

[Undefined]

Note the part of your post I've underlined. My question to you, not Farsight or pryzk or Russ Waters is: without a coordinate system, how do you know one clock is above the other?
Your still doing it, one the one hand saying there is a coordinate system (where altitude is defined), then saying there isn't, or it "has no part to play".
You appear to be oblivious to the obvious contradiction.

Your question is not novel. It was a futile objection tactic tried early on. Along with the unreal 'coordinate frame' based futile and irrelevant objection.

The answer was and still is OBVIOUS. You are in the room and the clocks are right in front of you. So unless you need someone to come along and tell you that the clocks are one above the other and so in different GR 'frames' therefore, then you should know the reality under your nose irrespective of what some guy coming into the room wants to 'sell' you that will 'tell you they are in different GR 'frames'; because (apparently) you can't tell that for yourself just by PLACING THEM YOURSELF ONE ABOVE THE OTHER with only centimeters between them in altitude.

Would you wait for that 'guy' to come 'sell' you some unreal 'abstract frames detector'? Or would you tell him "thanks but no thanks, I can take it from here". Hey?

Please no more futile distractions. No more semantics. Please read back in the threads/discussions if you don't want to cover already covered and irrelevant etc ground/objections. I would like observe the discussion between Farsight and others from the stage of already agreed points re the GR effects reality locally and the irrelevance of abstract overlays from MOOT 'co-ordinate frames' etc. Thanks!