Two static clocks are supported at different radii from a compact central object. The lower clock sits deeper in the gravitational potential and ticks more slowly than the higher one. Light sent upward from the lower clock arrives with a lower frequency, which the lab reports as a redshift.
• A compact central object, a supported lower clock, a supported higher clock, an upward frequency comparison and a coordinate time reference. • Sliders for the lower radius (1.2 to 5 R_s) and the higher radius (6 to 20 R_s), plus a toggle for explanatory moving markers. • Readouts: lower and higher proper time, each clock's dτ/dt, received over emitted frequency and the redshift z. • Experiments: near the radius boundary the lower clock advances much more slowly; moving it outward brings the rates closer together and lowers the redshift.
A static clock at radius r ticks at dτ/dt = √(1 − R_s/r), with coordinate time normalized at infinity. The frequency ratio for light from radius r_A to r_B is √[(1 − R_s/r_A)/(1 − R_s/r_B)], and z = ν_emitted/ν_received − 1 for r_B > r_A.
Clocks are static and supported, with no velocity time dilation, spin or cosmological expansion. Pulse paths are explanatory markers, not numerically integrated null geodesics or a travel-time prediction. The orbital clock in the Gravity as Curved Spacetime lab uses a different rate because it is moving.
No. Both clocks are supported, so they are held static against gravity. A freely falling clock would follow a different worldline with a different rate.
It decreases. The received-to-emitted frequency ratio is below 1, and the simulator reports the matching redshift z.
Down to 1.2 R_s in the model. Near that boundary the tick rate drops sharply, and the readouts show the lower clock advancing far more slowly than the higher one.
No. It covers gravitational effects for static clocks only. Motion-based time dilation is covered by the Time Dilation lab.