Recent content by plenum1

bcrowell, okay - that was somewhat miraculous - I went through your calculation - thank you for spending so much time on it! I can see the difference between your method and mine is primarily an extra 3 in the quadrupole term and a change of sign in the centripetal term- did you use calculus...

bcrowell- Okay - had to check over the signs in my calculation. Yes, you would think the centrifugal force should affect g that way - but as far as I can tell that's not the way that Ashby figures it in his equation - he puts it in as a centripetal force instead, pointing in the opposite...

bcromwell- Sorry, should have replied about that geology comment - I don't think that geology is the source of the difference in g's, since the calculation based on equation 1.5 gives an excellent correlation with the positional height of the reference ellipsoid to within a maximum of about 60...

Naty1 - thanks, I did check some other posts, I think maybe I am stuck at a deeper level - I already have taken into account the Earth oblateness with the quadrupole term and the rotation term, I actually get the correct answer to within 60 meters of the reference ellipsoid which matches the...

Thanks for your response - I am assuming that it is correct that clocks all count at the same rate across the globe. I am just trying to understand how the relativistic terms all add up to give this result. Yes you are right, there is the centripetal term due to the Earth's rotation, it is not...

I am trying to understand how relativity explains that clocks all over the globe count at about the same rate at sea level. One of the papers that I have looked at is "The global positioning system, relativity, and extraterrestrial navigation" at...