Re:A clock that can detect tiny shifts in the flow of time i...
by AnimalMuppet on Monday November 03, 2014 @04:51PM
(#8553778)
You're forgetting that Everest isn't on the equator. Distance from the center of the earth doesn't matter; distance from the axis of rotation matters. So you need to multiply Everest's (height + radius) by the cosine of its latitude.
Re:A clock that can detect tiny shifts in the flow of time i...
by HCIdivision17 on Monday November 03, 2014 @05:01PM
(#8553841)
You're entirely correct, and I'm going to modify my answer to a convenient lie (in the true style of a physicist).
The point stands, but now I'm interested in what kind of cones we could make where relative heights and latitudes yield identical velocities. Prolly as useful a question as most XKCD What If? notes :)
And so is a mere 0.15% increase in height. But compare the gravitational acceleration at these two heights:
[2] Everest = 9.76322 m/s^2
[3] Sea Level = 9.831 m/s^2
Sea level is 0.69% stronger. That's somewhat more significant, and given that gravitational energy follows the inverse-square law, it makes some sense that it would amplify differences more than the linear effects of speed.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=radius+of+earth
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=height+of+everest
[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravitational+accelerat...
[3] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravitational+accelerat...
[4] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lorentz+factor+at+1.5+m...
[5] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=rotational+velocity+of+...
EDIT: forgot the reference to rotational velocity (and spelling). Note that the point is scale here. Gravity is n^2 versus velocity's n. It'll have a stronger effect in most cases (and any where speed overcomes, well, we call them relativistic speeds, and they'll often be some appreciable fraction of c, like 1% or more).
DOUBLE EDIT: 'AnimalMuppet makes a good point that the entire estimate for Everest's rotational velocity is flat out wrong. So I've changed my premise to match my initial incredibly incorrect assumption.
If I were to attempt to be correct about the problem, we'd see that Everest is cos(27.9881 degrees [10]) = 0.8837 [11] as fast as the equator, which sorta blasts out any height changes by long shot. (Note I'm assuming the earth to be a perfect, frictionless sphere here, and definitely not a oblate spheroid.)
[10] https://www.google.com/search?q=latitude+of+everest
[11] https://www.google.com/search?q=cos(27.9+degrees)