Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #366837 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-12 06:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-12 20:59 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-12 06:25 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-12 13:43 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-12 07:24 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-10-12 19:44 +0200
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-12 10:31 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-12 17:21 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-12 17:22 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-12 17:24 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 10:35 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-12 12:44 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-12 22:20 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-14 05:57 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 15:21 -0400
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-14 12:49 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-22 06:04 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 11:22 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-12 21:23 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-12 21:28 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 10:40 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-12 12:17 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:34 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 07:43 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-14 05:37 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 05:54 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-14 12:58 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 13:18 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-15 06:35 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 06:55 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-15 17:46 +0200
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-15 04:16 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-15 06:01 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-15 09:12 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-15 17:30 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-16 10:15 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-16 15:23 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 09:09 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:37 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 09:50 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-16 09:48 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-16 18:06 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-16 14:49 -0400
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-16 19:25 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 15:05 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 13:14 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-16 18:34 -0400
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 09:19 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 18:45 +0200
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-22 07:39 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 11:23 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 19:30 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 07:27 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 07:34 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Juan Esteban <esteju@freecannabis.org> - 2015-10-25 15:17 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 18:48 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 19:04 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-16 10:05 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 18:14 +0200
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 09:42 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-16 10:04 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 09:29 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 17:06 +0200
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-18 09:07 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 08:50 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 22:19 -0500
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 20:28 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-15 06:20 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 08:58 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 17:22 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-12 17:56 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-13 06:28 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-13 08:40 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-10-14 09:07 +0200
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:15 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-18 09:33 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 06:07 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-25 19:16 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 05:09 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-26 08:21 -0400
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-26 21:41 +0000
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 19:28 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-26 08:52 -0700
Re: Testing of SR mutual time dilation John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-12 20:59 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e13b8d68-dabb-4fb2-bd28-ba0bef12dc06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366868 |
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 3:17:31 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:40:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 10/12/2015 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > The SR concept of mutual time dilation can be tested as follows: > > > 1. A and B are in relative motion in the opposite directions. > > > 2. When they meet each other they each set his clock at zero. > > > 3. After 10,000 seconds on each clock they turn around and meet again to compare clock readings. > > > 4. Question: According to SR which of the following is correct: > > > -- A accumulated the same number of clock seconds as B. > > > > That one. This has been discussed dozens of times on this group. Where > > have you been? > > The GPS says that you are wrong. The SR effect on the GPS says that it is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 7us/day compared to the ground clock. Yes this is true. Movement east and west are not the same for time dilation relative to the equator that is moving at 1000 miles per hour east. This is a given . Examples for Einstein thought experiment are assumed to have ideal conditions. The earth spinning at 1000 MPH is not ideal conditions for SR thought experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 07:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mviu8l$fui$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366868 |
On 10/12/2015 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:40:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/12/2015 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> The SR concept of mutual time dilation can be tested as follows: >>> 1. A and B are in relative motion in the opposite directions. >>> 2. When they meet each other they each set his clock at zero. >>> 3. After 10,000 seconds on each clock they turn around and meet again to compare clock readings. >>> 4. Question: According to SR which of the following is correct: >>> -- A accumulated the same number of clock seconds as B. >> >> That one. This has been discussed dozens of times on this group. Where >> have you been? > > The GPS says that you are wrong. The GPS is not a case of A and B in relative motion in the opposite direction. It has absolutely nothing to do with your scenario above. > The SR effect on the GPS says that it is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 7us/day > compared to the ground clock. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 05:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcba9e9b-7565-4e3d-b99a-ca0a507f9e45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366930 |
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 8:43:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/12/2015 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:40:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/12/2015 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> The SR concept of mutual time dilation can be tested as follows: > >>> 1. A and B are in relative motion in the opposite directions. > >>> 2. When they meet each other they each set his clock at zero. > >>> 3. After 10,000 seconds on each clock they turn around and meet again to compare clock readings. > >>> 4. Question: According to SR which of the following is correct: > >>> -- A accumulated the same number of clock seconds as B. > >> > >> That one. This has been discussed dozens of times on this group. Where > >> have you been? > > > > The GPS says that you are wrong. > > The GPS is not a case of A and B in relative motion in the opposite > direction. It has absolutely nothing to do with your scenario above. The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR effect on any two clocks is not mutual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32dc8fc3-affe-4fdd-91d0-2e8b82c1de06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367028 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS > is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR > effect on any two clocks is not mutual. Technically, the total effect is ALL GR, not SR, but the GR effect can be separated into a speed part and a gravitational part. For the GPS, the gravitational part is 45 us/day and the speed part is -7 us/day, making the net amount 38 us/day. Mutual time dilation can be measured by having an observer on the satellite observing the ground clock. Relativity predicts that the speed part will still be -7 us/day but the gravitational part will be -45 us/day, for a total of 52 us/day. Since there is no observer on the satellite, your assertion is unfounded. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <697c1d2c-ea50-40a8-87d0-4a5015e045a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367032 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS > > is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR > > effect on any two clocks is not mutual. > > Technically, the total effect is ALL GR, not SR, but the GR effect can be > separated into a speed part and a gravitational part. For the GPS, the > gravitational part is 45 us/day and the speed part is -7 us/day, > making the net amount 38 us/day. > > Mutual time dilation can be measured by having an observer on the > satellite observing the ground clock. Relativity predicts that the speed > part will still be -7 us/day but the gravitational part will be -45 us/day, > for a total of 52 us/day. Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. > > Since there is no observer on the satellite, your assertion is unfounded. > > Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae04c6a1-9f11-4177-b2c7-56c3aed79a92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367077 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 1:58:20 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS > > > is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR > > > effect on any two clocks is not mutual. > > > > Technically, the total effect is ALL GR, not SR, but the GR effect can be > > separated into a speed part and a gravitational part. For the GPS, the > > gravitational part is 45 us/day and the speed part is -7 us/day, > > making the net amount 38 us/day. > > > > Mutual time dilation can be measured by having an observer on the > > satellite observing the ground clock. Relativity predicts that the speed > > part will still be -7 us/day but the gravitational part will be -45 us/day, > > for a total of 52 us/day. > > Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect > is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. That depends on who is looking at it. From the earth, the speed part is observed to be a SLOW DOWN and the gravitational part is observed to be a speed up. You have it completely backwards and prove yourself to be a clueless yammerhead. Furthermore, your original claim is still bull crap: > > Since there is no observer on the satellite, your assertion is unfounded. > > > > Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1598628-e380-4157-b721-569daf0eecd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367081 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 4:18:22 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 1:58:20 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS > > > > is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR > > > > effect on any two clocks is not mutual. > > > > > > Technically, the total effect is ALL GR, not SR, but the GR effect can be > > > separated into a speed part and a gravitational part. For the GPS, the > > > gravitational part is 45 us/day and the speed part is -7 us/day, > > > making the net amount 38 us/day. > > > > > > Mutual time dilation can be measured by having an observer on the > > > satellite observing the ground clock. Relativity predicts that the speed > > > part will still be -7 us/day but the gravitational part will be -45 us/day, > > > for a total of 52 us/day. > > > > Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect > > is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. > > That depends on who is looking at it. From the earth, the speed part is > observed to be a SLOW DOWN and the gravitational part is observed to be a > speed up. You have it completely backwards and prove yourself to be a > clueless yammerhead. No yammerhead.... the satellite experienced acceleration therefore from the satellite point of view the speed part on the earth clock is +7us/day running fast and the gravitational part is -45us/day running slow. The total is -38us/day slow. > Furthermore, your original claim is still bull crap: It appears that it is you who is full of crap. Similar to your claim that a clock can compare to itself to get a residual per day. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 06:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e3662ae-2442-4052-b840-2872630c30d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367155 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:35:34 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > No yammerhead.... the satellite experienced acceleration therefore from > the satellite point of view the speed part on the earth clock is +7us/day > running fast and the gravitational part is -45us/day running slow. The > total is -38us/day slow. All you've proven is that you're nothing but a copy-cat moronic yammerhead. > > Furthermore, your original claim is still bull crap: > > It appears that it is you who is full of crap. Similar to your claim that > a clock can compare to itself to get a residual per day. :-) The universe doesn't care what "appears" to you. Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that empty space in your head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 17:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvohp3$m7c$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367158 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2e3662ae-2442-4052-b840-2872630c30d9@googlegroups.com... > It appears that it is you who is full of crap. Similar to your claim that > a clock can compare to itself to get a residual per day. :-) |The universe doesn't care what "appears" to you. But a clock does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvn9a6$o40$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #367077 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> > >> > The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS >> > is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR >> > effect on any two clocks is not mutual. >> >> Technically, the total effect is ALL GR, not SR, but the GR effect can be >> separated into a speed part and a gravitational part. For the GPS, the >> gravitational part is 45 us/day and the speed part is -7 us/day, >> making the net amount 38 us/day. >> >> Mutual time dilation can be measured by having an observer on the >> satellite observing the ground clock. Relativity predicts that the speed >> part will still be -7 us/day but the gravitational part will be -45 us/day, >> for a total of 52 us/day. >Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect >is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. The GPS system is a GR problem. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate to try to divide it into a motion-only SR problem and a gravitational field only GR problem, but here goes. Since the satellite sees the earth's surface as in motion, the speed part will be -7 us/day. Since the satellite is at a higher gravitational potential than the earth's surface, this will produce a dilation of -45 us/day. Note that the sign is opposite what it is for the gravitational effect from the earth's surface. -7 us/day plus -45 us/day = -52 us/day. As to any satellite observers, the satellite itself gets sent commands from the earth, so the satellite's radio receiver itself is an observer of earth's radio commands. Any high precision timing signals will have to account for this -52 us/day effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 06:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <684e3572-9b30-4b4f-87fe-357aeb923d8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367122 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 12:16:09 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > >> > > >> > The GPS shows that the SR effect is not mutual....the SR effect on the GPS > >> > is 7us/day running slower than the ground clock. That means that the SR > >> > effect on any two clocks is not mutual. > >> > >> Technically, the total effect is ALL GR, not SR, but the GR effect can be > >> separated into a speed part and a gravitational part. For the GPS, the > >> gravitational part is 45 us/day and the speed part is -7 us/day, > >> making the net amount 38 us/day. > >> > >> Mutual time dilation can be measured by having an observer on the > >> satellite observing the ground clock. Relativity predicts that the speed > >> part will still be -7 us/day but the gravitational part will be -45 us/day, > >> for a total of 52 us/day. > > >Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect > >is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. > > The GPS system is a GR problem. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate to try > to divide it into a motion-only SR problem and a gravitational field only > GR problem, but here goes. > > Since the satellite sees the earth's surface as in motion, the speed part > will be -7 us/day. No....the satellite experienced acceleration so it predicts the speed part for the earth clock to be +7 us/day running fast. > Since the satellite is at a higher gravitational > potential than the earth's surface, this will produce a dilation of -45 > us/day. Right... the satellite is at a higher gravitational potential and thus it predicts that the earth clock is -45us/day running slow. The total predicted for the earth clock for the speed part and the gravitational part -38us/day running slow. Note that the sign is opposite what it is for the gravitational > effect from the earth's surface. -7 us/day plus -45 us/day = -52 us/day. > > As to any satellite observers, the satellite itself gets sent commands > from the earth, so the satellite's radio receiver itself is an observer > of earth's radio commands. Any high precision timing signals will have to > account for this -52 us/day effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvo90e$vu1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #367146 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect >> >is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. >> >> The GPS system is a GR problem. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate to try >> to divide it into a motion-only SR problem and a gravitational field only >> GR problem, but here goes. >> >> Since the satellite sees the earth's surface as in motion, the speed part >> will be -7 us/day. >No....the satellite experienced acceleration so it predicts the speed >part for the earth clock to be +7 us/day running fast. The satellite experiences acceleration, yes, which is why I said breaking this problem down into two may not be 100% accurate. However, if the acceleration is small enough, the satellite will see the earth's surface whizzing by at the same speed we on earth see the satellite whiz by. Therefore the SR effect will be the same, -7 us/day. -7 us/day + -45 us/day = -52 us/day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1e1c68b-1453-4f3b-a032-cdfa20419a63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367150 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:17:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >Wrong....the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect > >> >is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. > >> > >> The GPS system is a GR problem. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate to try > >> to divide it into a motion-only SR problem and a gravitational field only > >> GR problem, but here goes. > >> > >> Since the satellite sees the earth's surface as in motion, the speed part > >> will be -7 us/day. > > >No....the satellite experienced acceleration so it predicts the speed > >part for the earth clock to be +7 us/day running fast. > > The satellite experiences acceleration, yes, which is why I said breaking > this problem down into two may not be 100% accurate. No idiot....the satellite experienced acceleration when it launched into orbit. So from the ground clock point of view it is running slower by a factor of -7us/day running slow. > > However, if the acceleration is small enough, the satellite will see the > earth's surface whizzing by at the same speed we on earth see the > satellite whiz by. Therefore the SR effect will be the same, -7 us/day. No idiot.....the launch acceleration is what caused the earth clock +7us/day running fast. The total effect from the satellite point of view: =+7us/day + (-45us/day)=-38us/day running slow > So that is in full accord with the prediction of SR. > > -7 us/day + -45 us/day = -52 us/day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvonru$ck7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #367166 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:17:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> Since the satellite sees the earth's surface as in motion, the speed part >> >> will be -7 us/day. >> >> >No....the satellite experienced acceleration so it predicts the speed >> >part for the earth clock to be +7 us/day running fast. >> >> The satellite experiences acceleration, yes, which is why I said breaking >> this problem down into two may not be 100% accurate. >No idiot....the satellite experienced acceleration when it launched into >orbit. So from the ground clock point of view it is running slower by a >factor of -7us/day running slow. No, mutual time dilation is a function of the speed difference between the two clocks, not on any acceleration. >> However, if the acceleration is small enough, the satellite will see the >> earth's surface whizzing by at the same speed we on earth see the >> satellite whiz by. Therefore the SR effect will be the same, -7 us/day. >No idiot.....the launch acceleration is what caused the earth clock >+7us/day running fast. The launch acceleration is totally irrelevant (as long as it didn't break the clock, of course). It was in the past. What matters is the current speed difference and the gravitational potential difference. >The total effect from the satellite point of view: >=+7us/day + (-45us/day)=-38us/day running slow Time dilation in SR (and GR) always means the moving clock appears to run slower, never faster. Special RELATIVITY means that to the ground observer, the satellite is whizzing by with a slowed clock (ignoring gravitational potential), and to the satellite, the ground is whizzing by with a slowed clock (again, ignoring gravitational potential). That's why the word Relativity is used. To the GPS satellite, -7 us/day + -45 us/day means it sees a -52 us/day difference on an earth-bound clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-oGdnfSOR5EVibzLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367172 |
On 10/15/15 10/15/15 - 12:30 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > mutual time dilation is a function of the speed difference between the > two clocks, not on any acceleration. As far as this statement goes, it is correct. But you failed to realize that "time dilation" applies ONLY to a moving clock measured in an inertial frame, and the GPS satellites are not at rest in any inertial frame. So it is not "mutual" in this case. See my recent post in this thread for details. > The launch acceleration is totally irrelevant (as long as it didn't break > the clock, of course). It was in the past. What matters is the current > speed difference and the gravitational potential difference. Yes, because the discussion is of clock RATES. > Time dilation in SR (and GR) always means the moving clock appears to run > slower, never faster. Hmmmm. "Time dilation" only applies to a moving clock measured in an inertial frame. It is certainly possible for a NON-inertial clock to observe some other clock ticking faster than itself; for the GPS satellite clocks THIS IS SO (ignoring the gravitational effect, and considering a standard clock in the satellite). > To the GPS satellite, -7 us/day + -45 us/day means it sees a -52 us/day > difference on an earth-bound clock. No. See my other post for why. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvr4qe$f7q$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367264 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> Time dilation in SR (and GR) always means the moving clock appears to >> run slower, never faster. > > Hmmmm. "Time dilation" only applies to a moving clock measured in an > inertial frame. It is certainly possible for a NON-inertial clock to > observe some other clock ticking faster than itself; for the GPS > satellite clocks THIS IS SO (ignoring the gravitational effect, and > considering a standard clock in the satellite). You both so terribly wrong, fact that suggest you both have no idea about what Relativity stands for. Not even as a Title, "relativity". I can give countless "inertial frame" configurations where the other clock is ticking FASTER (not slower). I'm baffled that I need to emphasise this fact, this place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 09:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j6mdnYOmEMEey7_LnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367265 |
On 10/16/15 10/16/15 10:23 AM, Euclid Baumann wrote: > I can give countless "inertial frame" configurations where the other clock > is ticking FASTER (not slower). Put up or shut up. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvtmet$bbf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367347 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/16/15 10/16/15 10:23 AM, Euclid Baumann wrote: >> I can give countless "inertial frame" configurations where the other >> clock is ticking FASTER (not slower). > > Put up or shut up. Certainly, but I need to hear it first explicitly from you, that this thing is not possible. In which case would reveal that you are incapable to construct such countless configurations, and I can win some easy points.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abd439d7-7537-4bb5-a276-9036da5cef11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367264 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 8:15:22 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/15/15, 12:30 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > mutual time dilation is a function of the speed difference between the > > two clocks, not on any acceleration. > > As far as this statement goes, it is correct. This is what SR says that equally apply to inertial and non-inertial frames of reference. <shrug> > But you failed to realize that "time dilation" applies ONLY to a > moving clock measured in an inertial frame, Tom is making up its own laws of physics again. <shrug> > and the GPS satellites are not at rest in any inertial frame. So it > is not "mutual" in this case. Tom is making up more bullshit that is not supported by science --- especially SR. <shrug> > Yes, because the discussion is of clock RATES. Under the GPS applications, it is not the clock tick rate that has to be synchronized but the time keeping counter accumulated by this clock tick rate. Tom needs to get a clue to unlock Tom's own gross ignorance. <shrug> > > Time dilation in SR (and GR) always means the moving clock appears > > to run slower, never faster. > > Hmmmm. "Time dilation" only applies to a moving clock measured in an inertial > frame. Tom is still making up its own laws of physics. Time dilation applies whenever a speed difference occurs regardless if inertial or non-inertial frames of reference. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36795119-4eb2-4c00-ba31-c1db031a6b62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367172 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:17:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> Since the satellite sees the earth's surface as in motion, the speed part > >> >> will be -7 us/day. > >> > >> >No....the satellite experienced acceleration so it predicts the speed > >> >part for the earth clock to be +7 us/day running fast. > >> > >> The satellite experiences acceleration, yes, which is why I said breaking > >> this problem down into two may not be 100% accurate. > > >No idiot....the satellite experienced acceleration when it launched into > >orbit. So from the ground clock point of view it is running slower by a > >factor of -7us/day running slow. > > No, mutual time dilation is a function of the speed difference between the > two clocks, not on any acceleration. This shows me that you don't understand what speed bewtween two clocks means....There is no speed difference between the two clocks. > > >> However, if the acceleration is small enough, the satellite will see the > >> earth's surface whizzing by at the same speed we on earth see the > >> satellite whiz by. Therefore the SR effect will be the same, -7 us/day. > > >No idiot.....the launch acceleration is what caused the earth clock > >+7us/day running fast. > > The launch acceleration is totally irrelevant (as long as it didn't break > the clock, of course). It was in the past. What matters is the current > speed difference and the gravitational potential difference. Acceleration does matter....the different GPS clock rate is due to acceleration. Again there is no speed different between the two clocks. > >The total effect from the satellite point of view: > >=+7us/day + (-45us/day)=-38us/day running slow > > Time dilation in SR (and GR) always means the moving clock appears to run > slower, never faster. It appears that you don't know what time dilation means. Between two clocks in relative motion the clock that accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate is called time dilation. >Special RELATIVITY means that to the ground > observer, the satellite is whizzing by with a slowed clock (ignoring > gravitational potential), and to the satellite, the ground is whizzing by > with a slowed clock (again, ignoring gravitational potential). That's why > the word Relativity is used. No you don't understand that there is no reciprocal between non-inertial frames. > To the GPS satellite, -7 us/day + -45 us/day means it sees a -52 us/day > difference on an earth-bound clock. Totally wrong......from the ground clock point of view, the GPS accumulates clock time at a faster rate of +38us/day than the ground clock and from the GPS point of view the ground clock accumulate clock time at a slower rate of -38us/day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web