Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430232 > unrolled thread

Why synchronize atomic clocks?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why synchronize atomic clocks? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 04:36 -0700
    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 05:02 -0700
      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 21:51 +0200
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:26 -0700
    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:16 -0700
      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-29 11:45 -0500
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 00:54 +0200
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 16:31 -0700
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 19:38 -0700
              Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-31 14:34 -0700
                Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-01 12:45 -0700
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:47 +0200
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-31 13:47 -0500
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-31 20:12 +0000
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-01 04:04 +0200
              Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 21:01 -0700
                Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 02:12 -0700
                  Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 04:17 -0700
              Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 21:34 -0700
                Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-01 11:41 -0500
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-01 11:17 -0500
              Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 09:43 -0700
              Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-01 20:10 +0200
                Re: Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 12:30 -0700
                  Re: Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 01:29 +0200
                    Re: Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 16:52 -0700
                      Re: Relativity and physical reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:27 +0200
                        Re: Relativity and physical reality Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:22 -0700
                Re: Relativity and physical reality Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-01 19:41 -0500
                  Re: Relativity and physical reality mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-02 01:01 -0700
                  Re: Relativity and physical reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 19:30 +0200
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:23 -0700
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-03 02:35 -0700
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-30 07:28 -0700
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 09:47 -0700
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 00:03 +0200
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 00:22 +0200
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-30 17:58 -0500
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:56 -0700
              Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 23:17 -0700
                Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:45 -0700
              Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-01 11:54 -0500
                Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-01 12:39 -0700
                  Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 12:51 -0700
                Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 19:26 -0700
                  Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:06 -0500
                    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:53 -0700
                      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-09-06 05:25 -0700
                        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 05:40 -0700
                      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-06 17:22 -0500
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:24 -0700
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 06:42 -0700
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 07:04 -0700
    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-28 07:49 -0700
    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-08-28 08:12 -0700
      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-08-28 09:11 -0700
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:15 -0500
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-08-28 09:44 -0700
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:52 -0500
      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 23:59 -0700
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-09-01 14:01 -0700
          Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-02 00:20 +0200
            Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-02 00:21 +0200
    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-29 17:11 +1000
    Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-29 18:38 -0500
      Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-31 23:38 -0700
        Re: Why synchronize atomic clocks? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-01 20:09 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#430683

On 8/31/17 11:34 PM, xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote:
> I keep forgetting to mention that if an unadjusted orbiting clock and the
> ground clock reunite afterward (synchronized before launch of course), they
> would show an elapsed time difference that has nothing to do with signal
> transmission. 

Yes. This is a minor variation on the twin paradox.

As I keep saying, that is a DIFFERENT geometrical effect. The "time dilation" 
and Doppler effect that I have discussed in this thread is a geometrical 
projection; the twin paradox demonstrates that different paths can have 
different lengths. These are related, but different, and that is reflected in 
the very different ways they are calculated.

	For GPS satellites, "time dilation" and the Doppler shift are
	inseparable; the calculation involves computing a (timelike)
	displacement 4-vector between transmitted cycles, parallel
	propagating it along the signal path to the receiver, and
	computing the (timelike) displacement between received cycles.

	For your scenario, and the twin paradox in general, the
	calculation involves integrating the metric over each clock's
	path between their meetings, and comparing the results.

So these are QUITE different, and use very different information:
  * The first calculation uses only the position and 4-velocity of
    transmitter and receiver at the instants of transmission and
    reception, plus the metric all along the signal path.
  * The second uses the details of the paths for both clocks everywhere
    between their meetings, as well as the metric all along those two
    paths.

Note these are both PURELY GEOMETRICAL EFFECTS. In neither case is any clock 
"affected" or "changed", and only geometrical quantities are involved in each 
calculation.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430682

On 8/31/17 2:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/29/17 8/29/17   5:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>  From the perspective of an observer who is stationary (or almost
>>> stationary by comparison) in the ECI frame, the atomic clocks aboard GPS
>>> satellites *are* affected by their motion relative to the observer (and
>>> in a different way by their greater distance from Earth’s center of
>>> mass).
>>
>> No, they aren't. By claiming the clocks are affected you have denied the
>> validity of SR.
> 
> No, I have confirmed it, in particular I have confirmed the principle of
> relativity.  There is no preferred frame of reference.
> *You* have denied it by saying that any measurement must be made in the rest
> frame in order to be real.

	[I never said anything about "real" -- YOU need to learn how
	 to read without putting in your own additions, which are
	 nearly always wrong. "Real" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.]

Apparently you do not know how English applies here.

When one says "that clock is affected and ticks slowly", one is talking about 
THE CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE. So this inherently means that you must measure THE 
CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE, which means for a GPS satellite clock you must be in the 
satellite -- you CANNOT use signals from the clock to measure JUST THE CLOCK.

Apparently you do not know what the PoR actually is.

The PoR states that the LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same in every (locally) inertial 
frame. In particular, it does NOT make any claim that measurements are the same 
in all inertial frames.

Apparently you do not know how to apply the PoR here.

If the GPS satellite clocks were affected (by their motion or altitude), then it 
would necessarily be that the laws of physics [#] in the satellite are DIFFERENT 
from those on earth. THAT VIOLATES THE POR.

	[#] I.e. those that govern the Cs133 hyperfine frequency.

Note that the ISO definition of the second implicitly includes the PoR. 1 second 
is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition for a free atom. There 
is no mention of where it might be or how it might be moving, but the language 
used implies it does not include any signal propagation.

So yes, there is no preferred from of reference. But when one talks about A 
CLOCK, one must discuss ONLY THE CLOCK. When one discusses the PoR, one must 
consider that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same in all frames, but that 
measurements might well be different when made in different frames.

>> Note the satellite's chip clock is 10.22999999543 MHz. […]
> 
> A clock is not a frequency. 

My apologies. I switched from the physics meaning of "clock" to the electronics 
meaning of "clock", without mention. So change "clock" to "frequency of 
ticking", thus retaining the physics meaning throughout.

The bottom line remains the same: GPS satellite clocks have a chip frequency of 
10.22999999543 MHz, which is received on the geoid as 10.23000000000 MHz. This 
is undeniable, because: a) the Cs133 oscillator oscillates at 9,192,631,770 Hz 
BY DEFINITION, b) the GPS specifications require the on-board satellite chip 
frequency to be 10.22999999543 MHz, and c) the signals from the satellites are 
indeed observed on the geoid to have a chip frequency of 10.23000000000 MHz.

When one computes the effect on the SIGNALS of their propagation from satellite 
to geoid, one finds that 10.22999999543 MHz is predicted to be received at 
10.23000000000 MHz, leaving "no room" for the clock itself to be "affected".

	[I am glossing over certain caveats and details that are not
	 germane to this discussion.]

I do not understand why this is so hard for you (and others around here). It 
OUGHT to be obvious that SIGNALS from a satellite don't necessarily reflect what 
happens to their clocks, one must ALSO include how those signals are affected by 
propagation from satellite to ground. Do that, and for GPS satellites it becomes 
QUITE CLEAR that the clock itself is not affected, ONLY THE RECEPTION OF SIGNALS 
IS AFFECTED. The design of the GPS accounts for this.

	This is far more general than the GPS. In General Relativity
	the elapsed proper time of every clock is an invariant, and
	the way that is computed makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the clock
	is not affected by its motion or location. But to measure the
	tick rate of a clock one must use an instrument that is
	co-located and co-moving with the clock being measured (any
	other approach would include effects other than the clock).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430684

W dniu piątek, 1 września 2017 18:17:13 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 8/31/17 2:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 8/29/17 8/29/17   5:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>  From the perspective of an observer who is stationary (or almost
> >>> stationary by comparison) in the ECI frame, the atomic clocks aboard GPS
> >>> satellites *are* affected by their motion relative to the observer (and
> >>> in a different way by their greater distance from Earth’s center of
> >>> mass).
> >>
> >> No, they aren't. By claiming the clocks are affected you have denied the
> >> validity of SR.
> > 
> > No, I have confirmed it, in particular I have confirmed the principle of
> > relativity.  There is no preferred frame of reference.
> > *You* have denied it by saying that any measurement must be made in the rest
> > frame in order to be real.
> 
> 	[I never said anything about "real" -- YOU need to learn how
> 	 to read without putting in your own additions, which are
> 	 nearly always wrong. "Real" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.]
> 
> Apparently you do not know how English applies here.
> 
> When one says "that clock is affected and ticks slowly", one is talking about 
> THE CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE. So this inherently means that you must measure THE 
> CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE, which means for a GPS satellite clock you must be in the 
> satellite -- you CANNOT use signals from the clock to measure JUST THE CLOCK.
> 
> Apparently you do not know what the PoR actually is.
> 
> The PoR states that the LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same in every (locally) inertial 
> frame. In particular, it does NOT make any claim that measurements are the same 
> in all inertial frames.
> 
> Apparently you do not know how to apply the PoR here.
> 
> If the GPS satellite clocks were affected (by their motion or altitude), then it 
> would necessarily be that the laws of physics [#] in the satellite are DIFFERENT 
> from those on earth. THAT VIOLATES THE POR.
> 
> 	[#] I.e. those that govern the Cs133 hyperfine frequency.
> 
> Note that the ISO definition of the second implicitly includes the PoR. 1 second 
> is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition for a free atom.

Note that without this definition (assuming your
Shit is correct) your Shit would have nothing.
And when the ISO beaurocrates finally get conscious,
your Shit will make a quiet "pyf" and vanish, together
with all its "evidence".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430699 — Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?)

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/31/17 2:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/29/17 8/29/17   5:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>  From the perspective of an observer who is stationary (or almost
>>>> stationary by comparison) in the ECI frame, the atomic clocks aboard
>>>> GPS satellites *are* affected by their motion relative to the observer
>>>> (and in a different way by their greater distance from Earth’s center
>>>> of mass).
>>> No, they aren't. By claiming the clocks are affected you have denied the
>>> validity of SR.
>> No, I have confirmed it, in particular I have confirmed the principle of
>> relativity.  There is no preferred frame of reference.
>> *You* have denied it by saying that any measurement must be made in the
>> rest frame in order to be real.
> 
> [I never said anything about "real" -- YOU need to learn how
> to read without putting in your own additions, which are
> nearly always wrong. "Real" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.]

Oh, but it has.  By definition, reality is *what one observes*.
 
> Apparently you do not know how English applies here.

To say that something is “affected” means that something about it is 
different compared to another situation (that might be called “normal”), 
yes?

<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affected>

> When one says "that clock is affected and ticks slowly", one is talking
> about THE CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE.

We can only know about the state of the clock because *we observe the clock* 
(in some way).  Who is to say which observer is correct about the current 
state of the clock?

Answer: Nobody.  Because from the PoR follows that *there is no preferred 
reference frame*.  There is _not_ only *one* reference frame, nor even only 
a specific number of reference frames, in which the only correct 
statement(s) about the *same* thing can be made.

AISB, from special relativity already follows that statements from all 
observers about the *same* object are correct as long as they are correct 
for one observer and correspond to the Lorentz transformation of the 
quantities used in the statements of the observers about the *same* object.

For example, let us assume that the two of us are identical twins, and that 
I state that I observe a light source that emits predominantly red light.  I 
point you to that light source.  But you disagree with me, claiming that you 
see the same light source to be emitting predominantly ultraviolet light.

How could that be?  How can the *same* light source be described so 
differently by two such people?

Because you are in a futuristic spaceship moving towards the light source at 
a high relative speed, and I am _not_.  For you, the relativistic Doppler 
effect lets the emitted light appear blue-shifted; but not for me, as I am, 
say, at rest to the same light source (to illustrate, let that be a red 
giant star).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect>

Now, who is to say which one of the two of us is correct about the color of 
the light – or more physically speaking, about its frequency and wavelength?  
*Nobody*.  Even though our statements *differ*, we are *both* correct about 
the color/frequency of the light, *from our respective perspective*.

See also:

<http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/genius/videos/time-is-not-absolute/>

> So this inherently means that you must measure THE CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE,
> which means for a GPS satellite clock you must be in the satellite -- you
> CANNOT use signals from the clock to measure JUST THE CLOCK.

Yes I (one) can.  I just depends on the kind of the emitted signals.
 
> Apparently you do not know what the PoR actually is.
> 
> The PoR states that the LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same in every (locally)
> inertial frame. In particular, it does NOT make any claim that
> measurements are the same in all inertial frames.

Straw man.
 
> […] 
> I do not understand why this is so hard for you (and others around here).
> It OUGHT to be obvious that SIGNALS from a satellite don't necessarily
> reflect what happens to their clocks,

Straw man, again.

You fail to appreciate the fact that “what happens to a clock” or “that/how 
a clock is affected” *depends on who observes that clock*.

I do not subscribe to your interpretation that (because of the use of the 
term “proper” in the theories of relativity as qualifier for the quantities 
measured in that situation) the only correct statement about an object is 
the one that is made by an observer at rest in that object’s rest frame.

If that is a problem for you, then we will have to agree to disagree, 
because I am convinced that Einstein would agree with me:

,-<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
| 
| All our thoughts and concepts are called up by sense-experiences and have 
| a meaning only in reference to these sense-experiences.  […]

> [tl;dr]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430709 — Re: Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?)

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 1:10:31 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> I do not subscribe to your interpretation that (because of the use of the 
> term “proper” in the theories of relativity as qualifier for the quantities 
> measured in that situation) the only correct statement about an object is 
> the one that is made by an observer at rest in that object’s rest frame.
> 
> If that is a problem for you, then we will have to agree to disagree, 
> because I am convinced that Einstein would agree with me:

The language of relativity has evolved considerably since Einstein's day. Certain terms and concepts introduced by Einstein have become deprecated (e.g.
"relativistic mass"); certain widespread loose use of terminology is no 
longer tolerated because of recent discoveries and insights (for instance, 
the discovery of Terrell-Penrose rotation informed people to be very wary of
using the verb "to see"); certain other terms of art have evolved away from the
ordinary English usages of those terms (for instance, a relativistic "observer"
is quite different from an "observer" in ordinary discourse). 
 
I find your use of various terms to at odds with their accepted use in the
English-language literature on relativity. (Refer to my previous discussion on
your use of the word "affect".) 

Precise use of terminology is an important part of communicating properly with
others. Your terminology often tends to be idiosyncratic. You express certain
concepts in such a way as to make others think that you don't really know what
you are talking about. *You* know what your words mean to *you*, but that 
doesn't mean that others will agree that your words correctly express the 
meaning that you intend.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430769 — Re: Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?)

</killfile>

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You forgot to prepend “Ridiculous”.

> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 1:10:31 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> If that is a problem for you, then we will have to agree to disagree,
>> because I am convinced that Einstein would agree with me:
> 
> The language of relativity has evolved considerably since Einstein's day.

Red herring.

> Certain terms and concepts introduced by Einstein have become deprecated
> (e.g. "relativistic mass"); […]

JFTR:

Evidently, you have no clue what you are talking about.  Einstein did _not_ 
introduce the term “relativistic mass” at all; *other* people (Lewis & 
Tolman, 1909) did, and he *explicitly* *deprecated* it:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#The_relativistic_mass_concept>
| 
| “It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/√(1 − v²/c²) 
|  of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better 
|  to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of 
|  introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and 
|  energy of a body in motion.”
| 
|   —Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948
|    (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42)

> [tl;dr]

<killfile>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430771 — Re: Relativity and physical reality (was: Why synchronize atomic clocks?)

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:29:28 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> </killfile>
> 
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You forgot to prepend “Ridiculous”.
> 
> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 1:10:31 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> If that is a problem for you, then we will have to agree to disagree,
> >> because I am convinced that Einstein would agree with me:
> > 
> > The language of relativity has evolved considerably since Einstein's day.
> 
> Red herring.
> 
> > Certain terms and concepts introduced by Einstein have become deprecated
> > (e.g. "relativistic mass"); […]
> 
> JFTR:
> 
> Evidently, you have no clue what you are talking about.  Einstein did _not_ 
> introduce the term “relativistic mass” at all; *other* people (Lewis & 
> Tolman, 1909) did, and he *explicitly* *deprecated* it:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#The_relativistic_mass_concept>
> | 
> | “It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/√(1 − v²/c²) 
> |  of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better 
> |  to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of 
> |  introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and 
> |  energy of a body in motion.”
> | 
> |   —Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948
> |    (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42)
> 
> > [tl;dr]
> 
> <killfile>

This is most interesting. You choose to insult and killfile me rather than 
debate the issues that I have raised. And your sole substantive rebuttal of 
any of my points was on a technical issue. Einstein *did* introduce the concept
of relativistic mass, although others gave the concept the common name that
we associate with it. And Einstein did not disown the concept until years later,
when it became apparent to him that it was not a useful concept. 

I do not find your present behavior to be at all admirable. 

You have STILL not attempted to rebut my criticism of your use of the word 
"affect". Is that because I managed to make it clear to you that your usage of
the word has been confusing?

Alas, you will not see this post unless somebody not on your killfile list
responds to me. (hint, hint)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430776 — Re: Relativity and physical reality

</killfile>

Some pseudonymous asshole wrote:

> This is most interesting. You choose to insult and killfile me rather than
> debate the issues that I have raised.

No, if you read more carefully (but what else should I expect from you?), 
you have been in my killfile already – because you are using Google Groups 
(that earns you a score of −10) and because you are not posting with a real 
name (that would earn you another −1, but you are an anti-social asshole
and circumvent my filter against pseudonymouses with a pseudo-real name).  
Replying to one of my postings earns you another +1, therefore I could still 
see your posting (my killfile starts at the top at −10).  (But I may need to 
change that now.)

I just wanted to set the record straight about Einstein, given your 
unsubstantiated, uninformed claim.

<killfile>

F’up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430802 — Re: Relativity and physical reality

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> </killfile>
> 
> Some pseudonymous asshole wrote:
> 
> > This is most interesting. You choose to insult and killfile me rather than
> > debate the issues that I have raised.
> 
> No, if you read more carefully (but what else should I expect from you?), 
> you have been in my killfile already – because you are using Google Groups 
> (that earns you a score of −10) and because you are not posting with a real 
> name (that would earn you another −1, but you are an anti-social asshole
> and circumvent my filter against pseudonymouses with a pseudo-real name).  
> Replying to one of my postings earns you another +1, therefore I could still 
> see your posting (my killfile starts at the top at −10).  (But I may need to 
> change that now.)
> 
> I just wanted to set the record straight about Einstein, given your 
> unsubstantiated, uninformed claim.
> 
> <killfile>
> 
> F’up2 poster

It's up to you. If you want to plug your ears, bury your head under the pillow
and cry so as to drown out my criticism, it's up to you. But you are STILL
mangling the terminology. 

Others here have concluded that your problem is far more than just a misuse
of language. I currently don't happen to believe that, BUT I COULD VERY WELL
BE WRONG.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430778 — Re: Relativity and physical reality

On 9/1/17 9/1/17   1:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> When one says "that clock is affected and ticks slowly", one is talking
>> about THE CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE.
> 
> We can only know about the state of the clock because *we observe the clock*
> (in some way).

BUT WE DON'T DO THAT!!!! In the GPS we NEVER observe the satellite clocks, we 
only observe SIGNALS from them.

How can you possibly justify IGNORING those signals????

> Who is to say which observer is correct about the current
> state of the clock?
> 
> Answer: Nobody.

Not true. An observer on the satellite could do so. Equivalently, an instrument 
on the satellite could do so. And we have such an instrument: the on-board Cs133 
oscillator and the associated divider. We KNOW that the Cs133 oscillates at 
9,192,631,770 Hz, and we KNOW that the on-board chip frequency is 10.22999999543 
MHz.

> Because from the PoR follows that *there is no preferred
> reference frame*. 

Yes. So what??? That has NOTHING to do with the case here.

This has to do with the English language -- ONLY a measurement on the satellite 
can unambiguously ascertain the frequency of the satellite's clock. ANY other 
sort of measurement includes something else, specifically propagation of signals 
from the satellite to the measurement device.

> There is _not_ only *one* reference frame, nor even only
> a specific number of reference frames, in which the only correct
> statement(s) about the *same* thing can be made.

I'm not saying there is. But measurements outside the satellite need to be 
CORRECTED for the variations in the SIGNALS. When one does that for the GPS, one 
unambiguously finds its chip frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hz.

	Make no mistake, that value can be verified in two completely
	different ways:
	 1) knowing the frequency of the Cs133 oscillator and the
	    implementation of the divider from it to the chip frequency.
	 2) measuring the chip frequency on the geoid and correcting
	    for the geometrical effects on the signals.

> You fail to appreciate the fact that “what happens to a clock” or “that/how
> a clock is affected” *depends on who observes that clock*.

This is your fundamental failure to understand what those words actually mean. 
What happens to a clock depends ON THE CLOCK, AND ONLY THE CLOCK (and whatever 
is acting upon it). It does not matter who might be watching, and all observers 
MUST observe the same thing happening (because only one thing actually 
happened). In this case that means that ALL OBSERVERS agree that the on-board 
chip frequency is 10.22999999543 MHz. (What various observers might measure for 
SIGNALS is irrelevant.)

	THINK about it: if actual happenings depended on who is
	watching, then physics itself would be impossible. Everyday
	life as we know it would be impossible.

IOW: Physical happenings are independent of who is watching. Mathematically they 
are always invariant under changes in coordinate system.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430797 — Re: Relativity and physical reality

W dniu sobota, 2 września 2017 02:41:36 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> Not true. An observer on the satellite could do so. Equivalently, an instrument 
> on the satellite could do so. And we have such an instrument: the on-board Cs133 
> oscillator and the associated divider. We KNOW that the Cs133 oscillates at 
> 9,192,631,770 Hz, and we KNOW that the on-board chip frequency is 10.22999999543 
> MHz.

And, as you KNOW they do, you're immune to the fact
they don't, poor idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430836 — Re: Relativity and physical reality

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/1/17 9/1/17   1:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> When one says "that clock is affected and ticks slowly", one is talking
>>> about THE CLOCK AND NOTHING ELSE.
>> We can only know about the state of the clock because *we observe the
>> clock* (in some way).
> 
> BUT WE DON'T DO THAT!!!! […]

Your keyboard is b0rked.

> In the GPS we NEVER observe the satellite clocks, we only observe SIGNALS
> from them.

That does not change the fact that we know with great confidence what 
“happens the clocks” – from *different* perspectives –, knowing how they
are constructed, and were adjusted before being sent into the terrestrial
orbit, and that they are synchronized with clocks on the ground daily, to 
fulfill their purpose in that orbit.

> How can you possibly justify IGNORING those signals????

I am not.

In any case, I think that you, being a particle physicist, are particularly 
well aware that observing an object does not need to mean to see that object 
with one’s own eyes, but means *receiving information* about the state of 
the (assumed) object in *any* way.  For that, what I said holds.  (You are 
just too hung up on the particular example to see that.  If that helps, 
modify in your mind the GPS satellite to additionally send video of the 
display of the clock to the ground, and reconsider.)

AISB, for the reasons that I have given, it is a fallacy, and _not_ backed 
up by relativity, to assume otherwise – including to assume that for all 
observers an object has only one state, the one observed in its rest 
frame –, as you continue to do:

>> Who is to say which observer is correct about the current state of the 
>> clock?
>> 
>> Answer: Nobody.
> 
> Not true. An observer on the satellite could do so.   Equivalently, an 
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> instrument on the satellite could do so. […]
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am sorry if you cannot see that, but you can keep your unfounded/badly 
founded, impolite berating to yourself.  It is not the one who shouts the 
loudest who is right, but who presents the better argument.  Evidently you 
have not even thought about my argument, you just continue your strawman 
fallacies (arguing against positions that I simply did not take).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430888

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> ISTM that you are merely performing high-level nitpicking here.  From the 
> perspective of an observer who is stationary (or almost stationary by 
> comparison) in the ECI frame, the atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites *are* 
> affected by their motion relative to the observer (and in a different way by 
> their greater distance from Earth’s center of mass).

I agree that an earthbound observer, after accounting for distance/velocity
effects, measures a different rate for an orbiting clock than a satellite
observer co-moving with the clock. 

I also agree that an earthbound observer's measurements are every bit as
legitimate as the satellite observer's measurements.

I vehemently *disagree* that a GPS clock can be stated as having been
"affected" by its motion relative to the observer. Likewise one can not 
state that it is "affected" by its position within Earth's gravitational
field. The word "affected", applied to a clock, would imply that you believe
that the clock has been materially changed as a result of its motions
relative to the observer and its position within Earth's gravitational field.

This is the central point of language usage that has separated you and Tom,
that has been the source of nearly all the disagreement between you two that
I see in this thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430902

W dniu niedziela, 3 września 2017 07:23:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> > ISTM that you are merely performing high-level nitpicking here.  From the 
> > perspective of an observer who is stationary (or almost stationary by 
> > comparison) in the ECI frame, the atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites *are* 
> > affected by their motion relative to the observer (and in a different way by 
> > their greater distance from Earth’s center of mass).
> 
> I agree that an earthbound observer, after accounting for distance/velocity
> effects, measures a different rate for an orbiting clock than a satellite
> observer co-moving with the clock. 

But, if he is a brainwashed idiot like you, he will never
admit it.

> I vehemently *disagree* that a GPS clock can be stated as having been
> "affected" by its motion relative to the observer.

Feel free to disagree, poor idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430454

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:45:49 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/28/17 9:16 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > GPS atomic clocks are affected by velocity (-7 microsec./day) and gravitational
> > potential (+45 microsec./day) changes, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT 
> 
> That is NOT any sort of fact at all, experimental or otherwise; IT IS WRONG.
> 
> It is NOT the clocks that are affected, it is the RECEPTION OF SIGNALS from the 
> clocks that are affected.
> 
> 	The on-board Cs133 oscillator ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz -- that's
> 	what these words mean. This oscillator IS NOT affected by its
> 	velocity (relative to anything else) or its gravitational potential
> 	(relative to anything else), because IT DEFINES WHAT "1 SECOND"
> 	MEANS IN THE SATELLITE.

The problem is that each tick of the Cs 133 atom takes a different amount of absolute time and this difference is dependent on the absolute motion of the Cs 133 clock. What I said is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of the Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second.

> 
> Note that the SIGNALS emitted by the satellite and received on the geoid are 
> affected by both its velocity relative to the ECI and its gravitational 
> potential relative to the geoid. In GPS satellite clocks, the divider between 
> the Cs133 oscillator and the clock mechanism has been modified so the Doppler 
> shift of the SIGNALS from satellite to a receiver at rest on the geoid is 
> canceled by the modification.
> 
> 	That effect on SIGNALS is clear and undeniable. If the clocks were
> 	affected as you claim, the GPS system would not work. And both
> 	Special and General Relativity would be refuted. So we KNOW that
> 	the clocks are not affected.
> 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430479

El martes, 29 de agosto de 2017, 12:45:49 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 8/28/17 9:16 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > GPS atomic clocks are affected by velocity (-7 microsec./day) and gravitational
> > potential (+45 microsec./day) changes, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT 
> 
> That is NOT any sort of fact at all, experimental or otherwise; IT IS WRONG.
> 
You are rejecting a historical fact, the launching of the first GPS satellite
from ground to the carefully designed operative orbit on the same 1905R 
stationary system introduced by Einstein at the end of Section 4 of his Jun30 
paper, a 1686 Newtonian mechanics center of mass one (an entity introduced on 
Corollary IV) corresponding to all the Earth's parts interacting according to 
his THREE Axioms or Laws of Motion, today denoted ECI, what occurs on July 1977.

Since that launching, the three 1686NM Axioms and the two 1905R Postulates
receive an always increasing HUGE experimental support from the very successful 
and accurate GPS operation. You are putting yourself completely out of science 
trying to negate that support.

> It is NOT the clocks that are affected, it is the RECEPTION OF SIGNALS from the 
> clocks that are affected.
> 
You remain very bad informed about how the information about the time that a
clock inside an operative GPS satellite shows every 5 milliseconds is 
broadcasted to all the GPS ECI stationary space, WITHOUT any affectation caused 
by velocity, gravitational potential or any other different physical conditions 
on the transmitter and receptor. This is very basic radio telecommunication link 
knowledge that you seem lacking completely. The link carrier frequencies 
transmitted SIGNALS have nothing to do with the information broadcasted.

The GPS designed 10.23 MHz standard frequency determining the same ECI time in
every stationary space point, is NEVER a SIGNAL transmitted or received. It is 
already present on all synchronized operative GPS clocks with that frequency, 
including the satellite and ground ones. It is the relative time to the 
stationary ECI system that 1905 Einstein defines on Section 1.

> 	The on-board Cs133 oscillator ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz -- that's
> 	what these words mean. This oscillator IS NOT affected by its
> 	velocity (relative to anything else) or its gravitational potential
> 	(relative to anything else), because IT DEFINES WHAT "1 SECOND"
> 	MEANS IN THE SATELLITE.
> 
You are completely confused. The Cs133 oscillator NOT affected by velocity or
gravitational potential that you refer does NOT exist at all. We know that 
precisely by the NEW experimental evidence obtained since the first GPS 
satellite launching. Since 1980, the valid second definition for an atomic clock 
refers to one located on the Earth's geoid, already incorporating officially the 
new evidence. You simply are following an old second definition useless on GPS.

It is not the first time that I explain to you this in all detail, including
dates, institutions and official documents.

> Note that the SIGNALS emitted by the satellite and received on the geoid are 
> affected by both its velocity relative to the ECI and its gravitational 
> potential relative to the geoid. In GPS satellite clocks, the divider between 
> the Cs133 oscillator and the clock mechanism has been modified so the Doppler 
> shift of the SIGNALS from satellite to a receiver at rest on the geoid is 
> canceled by the modification.
> 
I will repeat once more. ALL the information broadcasted from the satellites to
the ECI stationary space (including satellite position and transmission instant) 
is NOT affected at all by velocity, gravitational potential or any other 
different physical conditions for the transmitters and receptors.

The clock frequency IS affected by both velocity and gravitational potential
relative to the ECI, less than 9,192,631,770 Hz for the velocity (moving clocks 
RUN slower than rest ones), and greater than that for the gravitational 
potential (higher clocks RUN faster than lower ones). Fortunately, the effects 
result additive algebraically, and the adequate frequency divider for the 
satellite clocks (relativity correction) could be designed to obtain the desired 
10.23 MHz for all synchronized operative GPS clocks.

Your Doppler shift reference is completely irrelevant. Possible different
velocities between transmitter and receptor do not affect the phase of the 
signals transmitted and received (thanks to 1905R Postulates 1 and 2). Phase 
modulation is used with great advantage on the GPS telecommunication links. 

> 	That effect on SIGNALS is clear and undeniable. If the clocks were
> 	affected as you claim, the GPS system would not work. And both
> 	Special and General Relativity would be refuted. So we KNOW that
> 	the clocks are not affected.
> 
That effect on CLOCKS is clear and undeniable. If the SIGNALS from the
transmitters were affected as you claim, the GPS system would not work. And both 
1905R and General Relativity would be refuted. But it is an EXPERIMENTAL FACT 
that GPS system WORKS VERY GOOD. So we KNOW that the SIGNALS are not affected, 
traveling always on the ECI stationary space at the same uniform isotropic 
velocity c and constant telecommunication link carrier frequencies, totally 
independent on satellite and receptor velocities, in total agreement with the 
three original 1686NM Axioms and two 1905R Postulates, with Euclidean geometry, 
Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian equations, and space separated from time.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430507

Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:

> El martes, 29 de agosto de 2017, 12:45:49 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
>> On 8/28/17 9:16 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> > GPS atomic clocks are affected by velocity (-7 microsec./day) and
>> > gravitational potential (+45 microsec./day) changes, an EXPERIMENTAL
>> > FACT
>> That is NOT any sort of fact at all, experimental or otherwise; IT IS
>> WRONG.
> 
> You are rejecting a historical fact, the launching of the first GPS
> satellite from ground to the carefully designed operative orbit on the
> same 1905R stationary system introduced by Einstein at the end of Section
> 4 of his Jun30 paper, a 1686 Newtonian mechanics center of mass one (an
> entity introduced on Corollary IV) corresponding to all the Earth's parts
> interacting according to his THREE Axioms or Laws of Motion, today denoted
> ECI, what occurs on July 1977.

That is just pseudo-scientific word salad.

> [more word salad]
> The GPS designed 10.23 MHz standard frequency determining the same ECI
> time in every stationary space point, is NEVER a SIGNAL transmitted or
> received.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System>

> It is already present on all synchronized operative GPS clocks
> with that frequency,

What a nonsense.  A signal is not present in a clock, and certainly the GPS 
signal is not present in any atomic clock of any GPS satellite.

The GPS signal, other than it carries the time *information* in the 
*payload* (*data*) from the satellite to the receiver, and once per day the 
GPS time information from the GPS ground clocks to the satellites to 
synchronize the satellites’ clocks with GPS time (which is necessary because 
of the satellites’ motion relative to the ground), has nothing to do with 
the atomic clock of any GPS satellite.

> including the satellite and ground ones. It is the relative time to the
> stationary ECI system that 1905 Einstein defines on Section 1.

Cite evidence.  Quote the sentence or paragraph in

<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/155>

where you think that Einstein defines the ECI _frame_.

    [Don’t bother.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  Einstein 
    had no idea about the ECI frame or the GPS, especially not in (his) 1905
    (paper).  Those are more modern concepts and technologies.  In
    particular, GNSSs do not work without the application of the concepts
    of *general* relativity (*from 1915*/1916) – a well-confirmed theory,
    but *at odds with Newton’s law of universal gravitation*, in particular
    regarding the relativity of time *dependent on the differences between
    gravitational potentials/spacetime curvatures*.]
 
>> The on-board Cs133 oscillator ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz -- that's
>> what these words mean. This oscillator IS NOT affected by its
>> velocity (relative to anything else) or its gravitational potential
>> (relative to anything else), because IT DEFINES WHAT "1 SECOND"
>> MEANS IN THE SATELLITE.
> 
> You are completely confused.

No, at least in that regard *you* are.  The oscillator in its rest frame is 
not affected by the velocity of that frame relative to the ground receiver 
or its gravitational potential.

What is affected is the *difference* in *elapsed time* as measured by the 
ground clocks and the satellite clocks, respectively.  It is never zero.

> The Cs133 oscillator NOT affected by velocity or gravitational potential
> that you refer does NOT exist at all.

Yes, it does.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Mechanism>

> We know that precisely by the NEW experimental evidence obtained since the
> first GPS satellite launching.

What a nonsense.  It is common knowledge that GPS satellites have atomic 
clocks based on Cs-133 on board.  They do because atomic clocks are the most 
precise clocks that humankind has produced to date.

> It is not the first time that I explain to you this in all detail,
> including dates, institutions and official documents.

If so, why are repeating this nonsense?
 
>> Note that the SIGNALS emitted by the satellite and received on the geoid
>> are affected by both its velocity relative to the ECI and its
>> gravitational potential relative to the geoid. In GPS satellite clocks,
>> the divider between the Cs133 oscillator and the clock mechanism has been
>> modified so the Doppler shift of the SIGNALS from satellite to a receiver
> at rest on the geoid is canceled by the modification.
>
> I will repeat once more. [snip]

Thanks; but no, thanks.

>> That effect on SIGNALS is clear and undeniable. If the clocks were
>> affected as you claim, the GPS system would not work. And both
>> Special and General Relativity would be refuted. So we KNOW that
>> the clocks are not affected.
>> 
> That effect on CLOCKS is clear and undeniable. If the SIGNALS from the
> transmitters were affected as you claim, the GPS system would not work.
> And both 1905R and General Relativity would be refuted. But it is an
> EXPERIMENTAL FACT that GPS system WORKS VERY GOOD. So we KNOW that the
> SIGNALS are not affected, traveling always on the ECI stationary space at
> the same uniform isotropic velocity c

That much is true.

> and constant telecommunication link carrier frequencies, totally 
> independent on satellite and receptor

(_receiver_)

Since the relativistic Doppler effect is an experimental fact, your 
statement is wrong.  In fact, the frequency of the receivable signal differs 
from that of the transmitted signal due to relative speed, but the relative 
speeds are much less than the speed of light, so the differences are very 
small.

The relation between the frequency at the source (satellite) f_S and the 
received/observed frequency f_o is

  f_o = γ (1 − v∕c) f_S                      Relativistic Doppler effect,

where

    γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²),

and v is the relative speed between sender and receiver (negative if sender 
and receiver are moving towards each other), or IOW the sender’s relative 
speed as measured in the receiver’s rest frame or vice-versa.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect>

The maximum possible relative speed v_m for an observer at rest on the 
surface of Terra (Earth) is measured when a GPS satellite is moving against 
Terra’s rotation.  The average rotation speed of Terra is

   v_r = u_T/T_T

where u_T is the circumference of Terra and T_T is Terra’s rotation period 
(the time it takes the planet to rotate by 360°).  We find:

   v_r ≈ (40'000 km)∕(1 d) ≈ (40'000 km)∕(86'400 s) ≈ 463 m/s

(compare the infobox in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth>).

We also know that each GPS satellite completes an approximately circular 
orbit at a height of h ≈ 20'000 km above the terrestrial surface in T_S ≈ 
12 h (standard hours; 1 h = 3'600 s).  We find the orbital speed of a GPS 
satellite to be

   v_S = u_S∕T_S

where u_S is the circumference of the satellite’s orbit, and

   u_S = 2 π (h + r_T)

   v_S ≈ 2 π (h + r_T)∕(43'200 s)

where r_T ≈ 6371 km is the radius of Terra.  Then

   v_S ≈ 4 km/s.

v_m then is, *precisely*, the *relativistic* composition of the speeds v_r 
and v_S (according to the Lorentz transformation, _not_ the Galilean 
transformation):

     v_m = (v_r + v_S)∕(1 + v_r v_S∕c²) ≈ 4.463 km/s

(obviously, as the speeds are much lower than the speed of light, the result 
here is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Galilean addition of 
speeds).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity>

Setting v := v_m we arrive at

       γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) ≈ 1.00000000000000011082

where with c = 299'792.458 km∕s it means that

   f_o = γ (1 − v/c) f_S
       ≈ 1.00000000000000011082 (1 − 0.000014886966) f_S
   f_o ≈ 0.99998511 f_S.

Now, granted, that is not much of a difference, but it is _not_ *no* 
difference (the coefficient would be 1), and for the L1 GPS signal at 
1575.42 MHz it makes a difference of ca. 0.0235 MHz or 23.5 kHz between 
transmitted and received signal.

This is also only the most optimistic form of the worst case scenario if one 
considers that the receiver is usually moving relative to the surface as 
well.  For example, a jet airplane can reach ground speeds of ca. 0.5 km∕s 
(Mach 1.5) or more.

However, this does not have anything to do with the general operation of
the GPS or GNSSs in general.  Receivers for GNSS signals are obviously 
designed to handle a range of frequencies (that range must be the greater
the expected ground speeds of the receiver), and the calculation of the 
geoposition using the GPS method does _not_ involve the frequency of the 
GNSS signal *at all*.  (See the article referred above.)

> velocities, in total agreement with the three original 1686NM Axioms and
> two 1905R Postulates, with Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates,
> Newtonian equations, and space separated from time.

More pseudoscience.  Evidently, due to the Doppler effect, neither in 
Newtonian nor in relativistic mechanics is the received frequency 
independent of the motion of the sender relative to the receiver.

Also, the remarkable precision with which the predictions of special and 
general relativity (both on which the GPS depends), and their application in 
other theories, continue to be confirmed, and those of Newtonian mechanics 
are essentially _falsified_, leaves no doubt for a *reasonable* person that 
space can _not_ be considered separate from time.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430508

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> However, this does not have anything to do with the general operation of
> the GPS or GNSSs in general.  Receivers for GNSS signals are obviously
> designed to handle a range of frequencies (that range must be the greater
> the expected ground speeds of the receiver), and the calculation of the
> geoposition using the GPS method does _not_ involve the frequency of the
> GNSS signal

… nor any other frequency …

> *at all*.  (See the article referred above.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430511

On 8/30/17 8/30/17   11:47 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El martes, 29 de agosto de 2017, 12:45:49 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
>> On 8/28/17 9:16 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>>> GPS atomic clocks are affected by velocity (-7 microsec./day) and gravitational
>>> potential (+45 microsec./day) changes, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT
>>
>> That is NOT any sort of fact at all, experimental or otherwise; IT IS WRONG.
>>
> You are rejecting a historical fact, [...]

No. Not at all.

YOU are reading more into historical fact than is actually there.

The observed effects are, of course, of SIGNALS from the satellites, as I have 
said all along (and you have ignored). No GPS receiver is in orbit, they are ON 
THE GROUND, and the only observation they can make of the clocks in the 
satellites is OF THEIR SIGNALS. To claim "the clocks are affected" requires you 
to ASSUME that the signals from the satellites are not affected. But that is 
JUST PLAIN WRONG. And we KNOW it is wrong from myriad observations of Doppler 
shift, "time dilation", etc.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430599

El miércoles, 30 de agosto de 2017, 18:58:20 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 8/30/17 8/30/17   11:47 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El martes, 29 de agosto de 2017, 12:45:49 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> >> On 8/28/17 9:16 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >>> GPS atomic clocks are affected by velocity (-7 microsec./day) and gravitational
> >>> potential (+45 microsec./day) changes, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT
> >>
> >> That is NOT any sort of fact at all, experimental or otherwise; IT IS WRONG.
> >>
> > You are rejecting a historical fact, [...]
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> YOU are reading more into historical fact than is actually there.
> 
> The observed effects are, of course, of SIGNALS from the satellites, as I have 
> said all along (and you have ignored). No GPS receiver is in orbit, they are ON 
> THE GROUND, and the only observation they can make of the clocks in the 
> satellites is OF THEIR SIGNALS. To claim "the clocks are affected" requires you 
> to ASSUME that the signals from the satellites are not affected. But that is 
> JUST PLAIN WRONG. And we KNOW it is wrong from myriad observations of Doppler 
> shift, "time dilation", etc.
>
You remain without understand how an operative GPS radio communication link
works. The DATA INFORMATION broadcasted to the ECI space from the transmitter 
inside an operative GPS satellite and received on any other place (including 
ground and satellites), is NOT affected by the different physical conditions 
that can affect atomic clocks. How we know that? Because on the operative GPS 
already all the atomic clocks (including ground and satellite ones) are 
synchronized with the same standard 10.23 MHz frequency. Having already this 
same standard frequency available on all parts, all the processes of data coding 
(modulation) on transmitters and data decoding (demodulation) on receivers 
assure that the information is never altered when passing from some place to 
another with different physical conditions.

We know that when the first GPS satellite launching, the clock inside the SV
still at ground is synchronized at the standard GPS ECI 10.23 MHz frequency. 
What occurs when put at the carefully designed operative orbit on the ECI 
system, with different velocity and gravitational potential? It takes place a 
clock frequency change or not? This is the crucial NEW 1977 experimental 
evidence that you try to reject, as detailed by Neil Ashby (2003, between [ ]):

[ There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of
launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium 
atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would 
require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude 
as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic 
effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency 
synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if 
in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general 
relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the 
coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in 
NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before 
turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was 
+442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity 
predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12. The difference was well within the accuracy 
capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of 
the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for 
a clock at 4.2 earth radii. ]

Nature speaks very clearly. Atomic clocks ARE affected by changes on velocity
and gravitational potential on the 1905R ECI stationary system, an EXPERIMENTAL 
FACT since 1977, recognized officially since 1980 on the time scale 
corresponding to the International Atomic Time (TAI) of the International Bureau 
of Weights and Measures (BIPM, Paris), different from the Universal Coordinated 
Time (UTC) only in a number of leap seconds.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web