<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You need to be more careful in your assumptions
regarding your A and B clocks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>There are two very different situations, which
require rather different math. The experiment I have tried to get NASA and
ESA to do, and in two years, hope to get Japan's JAXA to do, of soft-landing a
Cesium clock on the surface of the Moon. This is specifically a "mind
experiment of Einstein" where the Equivalency Principle centrally applies (and
SR and Time Dilation does not). The two situations have DIFFERENT
gravitational fields (by a facttor od about six). The Equivalency
Principle easily calculates that (permanent difference) of GR on the surface of
the Earth and Moon. I encourage you to do the calculation again, where I
get that the Earth Cesium Clock will count <FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">10,976 times more ticks every hour. NO SR effects
occur in that expewriment.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The other sort of experiment which may be done is
like for the guy standing at the Earth's Equator. BOTH forms of Relativity
exist for him. He is racing around the Earth at over <FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">1,000 mph (velocity) by which we calculate the SR
time-rate effect (using Lorentz) due to velocity. We separately must
calculate his downward centripetal force (the ACCELERATION he constantly
experiences) to determine his Equivalency Principle. As noted earlier,
amazingly, those two very precise time-rate factors EXACTLY cancel each other
out.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Yes, it IS possible to do both of those Relativity
calculations from a Non-Inertial Reference Frame, such as from London, but the
math is then really obscure, as you then have to use either Hyperbolic or
Elliptic Geometry. It DOES still show that both effects still cancel each
other out, whether for the Equator or for any other location on Earth.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I chose having an Observer at the North Pole and
the "Traveler" standing at the Equator because I thought the math might seem
more easily digested in using Euclidean math.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I wish to apologize to you annd others. I am
fairly old and I have pretty severe Parkinson's Tremors, and so my keyboard
seems to like to include duplicate letters. I actually know how to spell,
but my fingers don't always cooperate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In any case, your A and B example can therefore be
describing two very different situations. One (Moon and Earth) ONLY
involves GR, and your A and B then only works in one direction. The other,
for any person or object like orbiting at our Equator, then BOTH forms of
Relativity applies, but the two effects exactly cancel each other out, so A = B
and B = A.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Please note that your arrangement of your
experimental apparatus requires additional definition, to more correctly define
the difference or similarity of your A and B clocks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In the '60s, NASA did not understand this and they
"totally ignored GR" in many satellite experiments and also in the Hafele jet
airplane experiment (all of which failed" . You have certainly informed
kids that "walking straight west" forever, includes you ALSO curving downward as
you walk. Ditto for the jet airplanes, which forever curved downward
(thereby accewlerating and thereby invoking GR).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Did I help clarify the subject? Even most
Theoretical Physicists do not fully understand General Relativity, and for
decades, I have been frustrated in trying to explain this stuff, even to
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>