J.C.MacSwell

Gamma bursts... redshifted 6.29?.... .... Oops, that was my son with his little flashlight, I told him not to shine it at the scientists while they are working. Just kidding!

Interesting. Any thoughts/insights on why it is the way it is? Does acceleration only effect time dilation indirectly by changing the Kinematic component?

Sounds right, and also with the square root of the density and inverse square root of the drag coefficient. Without dimples/roughness on either ball the boundary layer of the bowling ball would become turbulent first, resulting in a drop in the drag corfficient. How high is the Empire state building? The higher it is the more the bowling ball wins by, I'm sure it is at least as dense as the golf ball and significantly bigger radius. I think a smooth golf ball would have reached/approached it's terminal velocity but I'm not sure about the bowling ball or a dimpled golf ball.

I assume you meant Chuck not Bob. I would have assumed Chuck's time dilation would be twice Zach's as only a gravitational component is present and Chuck's is twice Zach's. But this is not the case? And there is no time dilation component due to acceleration in Bob's or Xirb's cases?

Why? (the bold part) The block would fall regardless of the coefficient since the normal force approaches zero as the angle approaches 90 degrees. (If it didn't "roll" off first)

IIRC It is around 0.2 for a laminar boundary layer but changes fairly abruptly for a turbulent boundary layer to 0.1. In fact a rougher or dimpled surface, which increases the skin friction, can reduce the total drag considerably at some reynolds numbers.

I actually assumed no equatorial bulge (maybe we need exotic planet material as well or we end up with a pancake) What difference would this make to the order?

They both accelerate until terminal velocity is reached then stay at that speed. The terminal velocity of the golf ball is probably less, due to the "relatively" greater drag (greater for it's weight) as Insane Alien pointed out. 1/r sounds right for deceleration as long as long as the nature of the flow does not change and the density of the sphere is constant.

I will say that Archie has aged the most, as he is just sitting in one spot with no SR time dilation effect due to speed wrt the final inertial frame and no GR time dilation effect due to acceleration or being in a gravitational field. All the others have some time dilation effect/s. So Hilda gets the first one right! (for the wrong reason)

Off in space you have a space station and two rogue "planets" that have broken away from their solar system. The space station is a hollow shell of exotic material (negligible mass) and a has the same radius as Earth. It is spinning fast enough so that if you were "seatbelted" to the inside of the shell at the equator you would feel 1 "gee". (let's say there is a counter weight on the other side so you wouldn't wobble). The first planet we'll call "Earth 1" as it has the same radius as Earth and the same mass. It is spinning at the same rate as the space station. The second planet we'll call "Earth 2". It has the same radius as Earth, but twice the mass. It is also spinning at the same rate as the space station. You have 7 "twins" who have volunteered for your experiment. Let's call them Archie, Bob, Chuck, Dave, Edgar, Frank and Gus. A. Archie, stopwatch in hand is seat belted at the center of the space station B. Bob is seat belted at the equator of the space station C. Chuck is seat belted at the "North Pole" of Earth 1 D. Dave is seat belted at the equator of Earth 1 E Edgar is seatbelted at the North Pole of Earth 2 F. Frank is seat belted at the equator of Earth 2 Gus is given a 1 "gee" space pack and will take off and return in one year based on Archie's stopwatch. His job is to encircle the largest area possible in one year. After one year, who has aged the most through least of the space septuplets, A, B, C, D, E, F, and G? They have a younger sister Hilda who's guess is ABCDEFG for no other reason than "that's the order they were born in". What order would you put them in? Are any the same?

I'm not sure how this bears on the topic, but the direction of acceleration is a factor. Edit: or is it? It (direction) will not effect the present rate of flow of time although it will effect the future rate. Whereas the rate of acceleration will effect both.

In accordance with SR a particle's definition of simultaneous depends on the inertial frame it is at rest in. It is in motion wrt all other inertial frames and will "disagree" with the definition of simultaneous of any particle at rest in those other frames.

Which, if the particles are not at rest wrt each other, is "relatively" difficult.

For my part (I'm no swansont), I think it is good bit of thinking regardless of whether there is a flaw in your assumptions. I see no flaw in your logic and I don't see any unnecessary complexity. My first question on your assumptions would be on the "local" part of the setup. Has this been done and produced interference patterns? I can understand Swansont's reluctance to look at all these "setups". Most of them are just "noise" and should be dismissed out of hand. Maybe he will look at it closer if noone else finds the "flaw" or possibly it merits an experiment. Where did this set up come from?

If he knew how you would test the particles (need many) could he use statistical information gained from testing the remote particles to ascertain whether you had run the tests? (regardless of the results, just could he tell that the tests had taken place?)

Pluto is slower than Earth is slower than Mercury.

Then you are now eligible for one "get out of jail free" card.

The shortest path locally or along a geodesic through the space-time metric which is shaped/affected by mass distributions (results in gravity). An analogy would be a meandering river even though everyone knows that water flows "downhill".

I think (have read) the upper limit for black hole mass is much less than the required dark matter, but related to the age of the universe, so on that basis it would be feasible. But it would have to be much much older and therefore would not fit the data without very significantly changing some of the underlying assumptions. (rate/s of expansion, distance estimates etc.)