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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674344 > unrolled thread

GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast.

Started byHenryWilson <Hgw@home.com>
First post2026-10-12 00:01 +0000
Last post2026-10-29 16:41 +0000
Articles 4 on this page of 44 — 12 participants

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

Contents

  GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-12 00:01 +0000
    Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Emanuele Babuh <uh@elbbem.ru> - 2026-10-12 07:40 +0000
    Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-12 20:55 +0200
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 07:30 +0200
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Clancy Balanovski <av@sysal.ru> - 2026-10-13 07:07 +0000
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:27 +0200
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-13 22:32 +0200
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 14:20 +0200
            Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-14 21:08 +0200
              Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 23:08 +0200
                Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-15 23:10 +0200
                  Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-15 22:05 -0700
                    Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:54 -0700
                      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 03:09 -0700
                        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-19 09:50 -0700
                          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-19 23:20 -0700
                        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-21 12:25 -0700
                          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-22 11:34 -0700
                            Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-22 12:28 -0700
                              Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-22 14:30 -0700
                              Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 19:46 -0700
                                Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-22 22:14 -0700
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 15:20 +0000
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 14:12 +0200
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 10:36 +0000
            Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 03:28 +0200
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-14 21:07 +0200
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Wildo Zhmulev <vedlml@hlhiudlo.ru> - 2026-10-15 07:52 +0000
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 10:39 +0000
    Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 09:42 +0200
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 15:54 +0000
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 16:01 +0000
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
            Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 06:18 -0700
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 17:30 +0200
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 09:32 -0700
    Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-10-21 11:04 +0300
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-21 10:07 +0200
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-24 20:18 +0000
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 11:25 +0000
      Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-27 21:32 +0100
        Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 23:03 +0000
          Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 00:47 +0100
            Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:41 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#675165

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2026-10-27 21:32 +0100
Message-ID<11br1o6$26oe0$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>
In reply to#674781
Mikko wrote:
> On 12/10/2026 03:01, HenryWilson wrote:
>> Here is one to argue about. According to GR, light experiences a redshift
>> in frequency when sent into lower gravity potential.
> 
> According to GR light from higher to deeper potiential is blue shifted.

_blueshifted_ (one word), correct.

> More generally, the period of any wave or any periodic signal or
> duration of any process is seen longer at lower altitude.

Hmmm.  This wording is ambiguous, potentially misleading, at least.
Consider: If the period T is longer, i.e. larger, then the frequency
f = 1/T is _smaller_; but f is /observed/ to be _larger_ than at lower
altitude instead.

Unambiguously, more elapsed proper time elapses at a higher than a
lower altitude _when at relative rest_.

Note that this is not necessarily so if there is relative motion.  From
the Schwarzschild metric (as a good approximation) we find for motion at
a constant radius r and speed v the elapsed proper time

  Δτ = Δt √[1 − 2 G M∕(c² r) − v²∕c²],

which implies that Δt is the elapsed proper time that would elapse at
infinite distance at relative rest.

So it is also possible according to general relativity that _less_
proper time elapses in an orbit than at a location on the ground.  This
is the case for the nearly circular orbit of the ISS, at an altitude of
ca. 410 km above Terra which itself is rotating much more slowly, but
the radius of a point on the surface is smaller than one on the ISS,
too: For a point on the surface, the square root above gives ca.
0.99999999981125, but for a point on the ISS it gives just ca.
0.9999999990183.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#675168

FromHenryWilson <Hgw@home.com>
Date2026-10-27 23:03 +0000
Message-ID<18e2855741e24cd5$17573$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com>
In reply to#675165
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 21:32:05 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Mikko wrote:
>> On 12/10/2026 03:01, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> Here is one to argue about. According to GR, light experiences a
>>> redshift in frequency when sent into lower gravity potential.
>> 
>> According to GR light from higher to deeper potiential is blue shifted.
> 
> _blueshifted_ (one word), correct.
> 
>> More generally, the period of any wave or any periodic signal or
>> duration of any process is seen longer at lower altitude.
> 
> Hmmm.  This wording is ambiguous, potentially misleading, at least.
> Consider: If the period T is longer, i.e. larger, then the frequency
> f = 1/T is _smaller_; but f is /observed/ to be _larger_ than at lower
> altitude instead.

Period of what? Please define the aspect of travelling light that gives it 
a period.
 
> Unambiguously, more elapsed proper time elapses at a higher than a lower
> altitude _when at relative rest_.

<irrelevant preaching snipped>

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

#675221

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2026-10-29 00:47 +0100
Message-ID<11bu1hm$2e1o9$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>
In reply to#675168
HenryWilson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 21:32:05 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Mikko wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2026 03:01, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> Here is one to argue about. According to GR, light experiences a
>>>> redshift in frequency when sent into lower gravity potential.
>>>
>>> According to GR light from higher to deeper potiential is blue shifted.
>>
>> _blueshifted_ (one word), correct.
>>
>>> More generally, the period of any wave or any periodic signal or
>>> duration of any process is seen longer at lower altitude.
>>
>> Hmmm.  This wording is ambiguous, potentially misleading, at least.
>> Consider: If the period T is longer, i.e. larger, then the frequency
>> f = 1/T is _smaller_; but f is /observed/ to be _larger_ than at lower
>> altitude instead.
> 
> Period of what? Please define the aspect of travelling light that gives it 
> a period.
It is an electromagnetic wave.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#675270

FromHenryWilson <Hgw@home.com>
Date2026-10-29 16:41 +0000
Message-ID<18e30dade1dbe7b6$871$583487$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com>
In reply to#675221
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:47:00 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 21:32:05 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2026 03:01, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> Here is one to argue about. According to GR, light experiences a
>>>>> redshift in frequency when sent into lower gravity potential.
>>>>
>>>> According to GR light from higher to deeper potiential is blue
>>>> shifted.
>>>
>>> _blueshifted_ (one word), correct.
>>>
>>>> More generally, the period of any wave or any periodic signal or
>>>> duration of any process is seen longer at lower altitude.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.  This wording is ambiguous, potentially misleading, at least.
>>> Consider: If the period T is longer, i.e. larger, then the frequency
>>> f = 1/T is _smaller_; but f is /observed/ to be _larger_ than at lower
>>> altitude instead.
>> 
>> Period of what? Please define the aspect of travelling light that gives
>> it a period.
> It is an electromagnetic wave.

That is an oversimplification. What does your EM wave actually represent 
and how is it oscillating.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web