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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvreao$60f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #367269 |
As I think about it some more, and after Tom's reply, I realize that the GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time dilation, it's really a "traveling twin" problem. The GPS satellite, as it moves in orbit from, say, directly overhead, around the world, and back to directly overhead, is the traveling twin, while the ground clock is the stay-at-home twin.(*) In this case the traveling twin doesn't go out, turn around (accelerating) and come back, it's constantly accelerating in a circle. I assume the "traveling twin moves in a simple circle" problem has a relatively simple solution but I don't know it offhand. I assume that we can still take the GR gravity time dilation (over one orbit's time), add it to the traveling twin's age difference over one orbit and add them and still be "close enough" to the actual GR solution. (*)except the stay-at-home twin doesn't quite stay at home, the earth rotates, now I have to understand this stuff about the ECI frame, the geoid etc. and how it changes everything. Now I have a headache. Anyway... kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >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. Putting aside the question whether the motion of the GPS satellite makes for a mutual time dilation problem, this is wrong, and absurdly so. Mutual time dilation is when, in A's inertial frame, A sees B as moving and B's clock as running slow, and in B's inertial frame, B sees A as moving and A's clock as running slow. You should try to learn SR some 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. Not launch acceleration. There is acceleration due to moving in a circle, changing this from a mutual time dilation problem to a traveling twin problem. > Again there is no speed different between the two clocks. In my initial statement (assuming inertial motion was valid, or at least "valid enough"), there most certainly was a speed difference between the two clocks. From the ground the GPS is moving rapidly and the ground stationary, while from the GPS, the GPS itself is stationary while the ground is moving rapidly. The orbital acceleration changes much. >> 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. In (inertial) motion in SR, each observer sees the other as moving, and the other's clock as running slow. Seeing the other's clock as running slow is the definition of time dilation. Each observer seeing the other's clock as running slow is mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 14:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t9h22bddmg2o0lrppruets8g7d38ndghjv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367272 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:06:16 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>As I think about it some more, and after Tom's reply, I realize that the
>GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time dilation, it's really a
>"traveling twin" problem.
What causes you to get these crazy ideas?
>The GPS satellite, as it moves in orbit from,
>say, directly overhead, around the world, and back to directly overhead,
>is the traveling twin, while the ground clock is the stay-at-home twin.(*)
Except, the ground clock is the one with
the lesser elapsed time.
>In this case the traveling twin doesn't go out, turn around (accelerating)
>and come back, it's constantly accelerating in a circle.
The satellite is never accelerating except
a little when it makes a minor correction in it's
orbit.
>I assume the
>"traveling twin moves in a simple circle" problem has a relatively simple
>solution but I don't know it offhand. I assume that we can still take the
>GR gravity time dilation (over one orbit's time), add it to the traveling
>twin's age difference over one orbit and add them and still be "close
>enough" to the actual GR solution.
Total delusional nonsense all the way
from the git-go.
>(*)except the stay-at-home twin doesn't quite stay at home, the earth
>rotates, now I have to understand this stuff about the ECI frame, the
>geoid etc. and how it changes everything. Now I have a headache.
>
>Anyway...
The headache may be from reading Seto's
nonsense and thinking maybe he is sane. :-)
Why don't you just study one of the good
lectures or texts available free on the web?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvrj06$gnj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367274 |
kefischer wrote: > Why don't you just study one of the good > lectures or texts available free on the web? You just expose your ignorance and a twisted view on what a study should be all about. Study is about Activity, not much lectures and text reading. To you a study means that you need to do your homework, solving problems etc. Just forget everything about Divergent Matter, one, two ... over, task completed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 15:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mvrlb5$n71$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #367272 |
On 10/16/2015 1:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > As I think about it some more, and after Tom's reply, I realize that the > GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time dilation, it's really a > "traveling twin" problem. Exactly! But also a traveling twin problem in a gravitational field. Thus, you can ask the question, what would be the time difference if a probe traveled around in a circle by, say, firing its rockets continually in the centripetal direction, compared to a clock sitting at rest in the center of the circle? > The GPS satellite, as it moves in orbit from, > say, directly overhead, around the world, and back to directly overhead, > is the traveling twin, while the ground clock is the stay-at-home twin.(*) > In this case the traveling twin doesn't go out, turn around (accelerating) > and come back, it's constantly accelerating in a circle. I assume the > "traveling twin moves in a simple circle" problem has a relatively simple > solution but I don't know it offhand. I assume that we can still take the > GR gravity time dilation (over one orbit's time), add it to the traveling > twin's age difference over one orbit and add them and still be "close > enough" to the actual GR solution. > > (*)except the stay-at-home twin doesn't quite stay at home, the earth > rotates, now I have to understand this stuff about the ECI frame, the > geoid etc. and how it changes everything. Now I have a headache. > > Anyway... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd101f5c-5a60-4b03-8bf1-461024270197@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367272 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > I realize that the GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time dilation, Yes, it is an application of gravitational Doppler. <shrug> > it's really a "traveling twin" problem. No, it is not. Any spacetime physics including GR predicts no Doppler as explained below. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 18:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bku22b5j4oog43comou1am8cuvgvm7glvg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367281 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:14:44 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> I realize that the GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time dilation,
>
>Yes, it is an application of gravitational Doppler. <shrug>
>
>> it's really a "traveling twin" problem.
>
>No, it is not. Any spacetime physics including GR predicts no Doppler as explained below. <shrug>
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ
Isn't that essentially what Roberts said to me
when he said something about the 4-velocities
of the two clocks not being parallel?
I thought the two effects of GR were,
motion, and gravitational potential.
Can so many people read things so
differently as to result in the confused mess
of the subject matter in your url above?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 09:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-8ydnQnZO_12xb_LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367292 |
On 10/16/15 10/16/15 5:34 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:14:44 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee > <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > Isn't that essentially what Roberts said to me > when he said something about the 4-velocities > of the two clocks not being parallel? Koobee Wublee doesn't have a clue, but pretends he is the only person on earth who understands relativity. He is seriously delusional, and practically everything he writes is just plain wrong. Ditto for the name-changing troll (here posing as "Euclid Baumann"). > I thought the two effects of GR were, > motion, and gravitational potential. No. Not even close. Those are the two effects into which THE SMALL-FIELD APPROXIMATION TO GR can be separated, in situations like this. > Can so many people read things so > differently as to result in the confused mess > of the subject matter in your url above? It can be difficult for amateurs and neophytes to distinguish poseurs and idiots from experts. The only way I know is that experts often refer to textbooks, while the wannabes and fools do not. I recommend: SR: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. GR: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_ Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e65de171-efd9-42ba-8438-1d89594eb0b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367349 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 7:19:25 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/16/15, 5:34 PM, kefischer wrote: > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:14:51 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:06:19 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > I realize that the GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time > > > > dilation, > > > > it is an application of gravitational Doppler. <shrug> > > > > Any spacetime physics including GR predicts no Doppler as > > > explained below. <shrug> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > > > Isn't that essentially what Roberts said to me when he said something > > about the 4-velocities of the two clocks not being parallel? Not even wrong. <shrug> > Koobee Wublee doesn't have a clue, Koobee Wublee is waiting for Tom to explain where SR says the laws of physics exhibit such drastic differences among the inertial and non-inertial frames of reference. Tom is clueless as SR never dictates so. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2vGdnbTMW6mS6b_LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367272 |
On 10/16/15 10/16/15 - 1:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > As I think about it some more, and after Tom's reply, I realize that the > GPS satellite issue is more than mutual time dilation, it's really a > "traveling twin" problem. Yes, with gravitation. > The GPS satellite, as it moves in orbit from, > say, directly overhead, around the world, and back to directly overhead, > is the traveling twin, while the ground clock is the stay-at-home twin.(*) Yes (close enough). > In this case the traveling twin doesn't go out, turn around (accelerating) > and come back, it's constantly accelerating in a circle. I assume the > "traveling twin moves in a simple circle" problem has a relatively simple > solution but I don't know it offhand. The same solution used for the usual twin scenario also applies here. Relative to the inertial frame of the stay-at-home twin, the traveling twin's clock has a total elapsed proper time of \integral sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) dt where v is the speed of the traveling twin relative to the frame, t is the time coordinate of that frame, and the integral is taken over the traveling twin's path. (The same integral can be used for the stay-at-home twin's elapsed proper time, for whom v=0.) Note that both v and t MUST be relative to an inertial frame for this to hold. That is an SR solution in Minkowski (flat, gravitation-free) spacetime. For a GPS satellite one must also deal with the gravitation and earth's rotation (so the stay-at-home twin does not quite have v=0, but see below for a discussion of earth's geoid). > I assume that we can still take the > GR gravity time dilation (over one orbit's time), add it to the traveling > twin's age difference over one orbit and add them and still be "close > enough" to the actual GR solution. Yes, for the purposes of this thread (but not for actual GPS implementation). > [... discussion about seto's nonsense] Regarding time in the ECI frame used by the GPS: The ECI is a locally inertial frame in the sense of GR, which is valid near earth (usually out to geosynchronous orbit or so; certainly out to GPS satellite orbits). Relative to it, the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c, and all GPS clocks are synchronized to a single GPS time (after corrections are applied to their raw data). There can be no real clocks at rest in the ECI, except potentially at earth's poles. So all real clocks are moving relative to the ECI, and the GPS arranges so each clock displays the time that a co-located ECI coordinate clock would display -- that is what the corrections do (for both satellite and ground clocks, though the former corrections are much larger). Earth's geoid is defined by the altitude of mean sea level everywhere on earth, and is also the surface on which a standard clock at rest inherently displays the same value as a co-located ECI coordinate clock [#]. [#] On the geoid, at each point the effect from speed relative to the ECI (due to the rotation of earth) is exactly offset by the effect from gravitation (due to the distance of the geoid from earth's center). The geoid is a slightly oblate spheroid (with minor variations due to local density effects). Note that both the GPS and UTC specify time on earth's geoid. UTC has leap seconds while GPS time does not. GPS time is specified to be kept within a microsecond of UTC modulo leap seconds; in practice the difference is typically just a few nanoseconds. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 18:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvttv9$78s$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367371 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2vGdnbTMW6mS6b_LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |it, the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c, and all GPS clocks are |synchronized to a single GPS time Not so long ago, you mumbled, that they are not clocks. Because they don't fit to Shit's concept of clocks. Relativistic morons always have poor memory. I've told you you're unable to change this word. Particularly, when you're preferring its old meaning yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3db6e881-772a-40c7-8a6c-d6a38c3bba16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367371 |
W dniu sobota, 17 października 2015 18:15:14 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > The same solution used for the usual twin scenario also applies here. > Relative to the inertial frame of the stay-at-home twin, > the traveling twin's clock has a total elapsed proper time of > \integral sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) dt > where v is the speed of the traveling twin relative to the frame, t is the time > coordinate of that frame, and the integral is taken over the traveling twin's > path. (The same integral can be used for the stay-at-home twin's elapsed proper > time, for whom v=0.) Note that both v and t MUST be relative to an inertial > frame for this to hold. > > That is an SR solution in Minkowski (flat, gravitation-free) spacetime. For a > GPS satellite one must also deal with the gravitation and earth's rotation (so > the stay-at-home twin does not quite have v=0, but see below for a discussion of > earth's geoid). HAHAHA! We move relative to a frame... bhehehe!!!!!!!! That is just the PhD's in physics advanced speech... hahahaha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5973d0b-cfb5-4caa-96e1-53eb9db02fd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367789 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:39:59 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 17 października 2015 18:15:14 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > The same solution used for the usual twin scenario also applies here. > > Relative to the inertial frame of the stay-at-home twin, > > the traveling twin's clock has a total elapsed proper time of > > \integral sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) dt > > where v is the speed of the traveling twin relative to the frame, t is the time > > coordinate of that frame, and the integral is taken over the traveling twin's > > path. (The same integral can be used for the stay-at-home twin's elapsed proper > > time, for whom v=0.) Note that both v and t MUST be relative to an inertial > > frame for this to hold. > > > > That is an SR solution in Minkowski (flat, gravitation-free) spacetime. For a > > GPS satellite one must also deal with the gravitation and earth's rotation (so > > the stay-at-home twin does not quite have v=0, but see below for a discussion of > > earth's geoid). > > HAHAHA! > We move relative to a frame... bhehehe!!!!!!!! > > That is just the PhD's in physics advanced speech... hahahaha! And another idiotic post. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16a46cee-bc5f-40e7-9c6e-a3a05a95b54c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367172 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 12:30:41 PM UTC-5, 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. > > >> 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. As long as we depend on our two-way radio signals- as opposed to "lighted objects in the sky that are visibly unaided"- as long as we choose to coordinate this way- instead, by a meaningful instantaneous maximum visual acuity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69d2ca60-88e8-47a4-816c-0081f8555817@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367150 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 8:17:04 AM UTC-5, 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. > > 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. Impedance of the Vacuum -52 us/86400 (52 microseconds) / 86 400 = 0.601851852 nanoseconds 1 / (0.601851852 nanoseconds) = 1.66153846 gigahertz (1 / (0.601851852 nanoseconds)) / c = 5.54229573 m^-1 (1 / (0.601851852 nanoseconds)) / (c^2) = 1.84871086 × 10^-8 s / m^2 1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8))) = 0.99999998151 length contraction 1 / (1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8)))) = 1.00000001849 time dilation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5074d79-e23d-4809-9532-e183e09c4e6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368059 |
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 8:17:04 AM UTC-5, 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. > > > > 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. > > Impedance of the Vacuum > > -52 us/86400 > > > (52 microseconds) / 86 400 = 0.601851852 nanoseconds > > 1 / (0.601851852 nanoseconds) = 1.66153846 gigahertz > > (1 / (0.601851852 nanoseconds)) / c = 5.54229573 m^-1 > > > (1 / (0.601851852 nanoseconds)) / (c^2) = 1.84871086 × 10^-8 s / m^2 > > > 1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8))) = 0.99999998151 length contraction > > 1 / (1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8)))) = 1.00000001849 time dilation (4 * pi * 29.9792458) / 0.99999998151 = 376.730320428
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juan Esteban <esteju@freecannabis.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 15:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0irpb$vha$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368060 |
fuller.david wrote: >> 1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8))) = 0.99999998151 length contraction 1 / (1 >> - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8)))) = 1.00000001849 time dilation > > (4 * pi * 29.9792458) / 0.99999998151 = 376.730320428 unbelievable elaborated bullshit, stfu plez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8a425e9-3dbf-4083-8784-630923a7eaac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368062 |
Juan Esteban fuller.david wrote: >> 1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8))) = 0.99999998151 length contraction 1 / (1 >> - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8)))) = 1.00000001849 time dilation > > (4 * pi * 29.9792458) / 0.99999998151 = 376.730320428 unbelievable elaborated bullshit, stfu plez In relation to the speed of an object, the vacuum possesses mass that impedes the objects travel. FVCK YOU ENEMA NURSE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ec7dc11-99f8-4a8c-ae65-dec05056f97c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368126 |
Juan Esteban - hide quoted text - fuller.david wrote: >> 1 - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8))) = 0.99999998151 length contraction 1 / (1 >> - (1.84871086 * (10^(-8)))) = 1.00000001849 time dilation > > (4 * pi * 29.9792458) / 0.99999998151 = 376.730320428 unbelievable elaborated bullshit, stfu plez In relation to the speed of an object, the vacuum possesses mass that impedes the objects travel. FVCK YOU ENEMA NURSE (4 * pi * (10^(-7)) = the cause of the impedance to speed in the vacuum. The mass being push out of the way. FVCK YOU again ENEMA NURSE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iMqdnX4itYLLj7zLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367122 |
On 10/14/15 10/14/15 - 11:16 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > [for a GPS satellite clock] >> the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect >> is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. Yes. The '-' sign corresponds to the amount by which the satellite clock is corrected (though it is actually a change in the divider, so it occurs continuously, not lumped once per 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. It is not perfectly accurate, but in the small-field approximation to GR it's plenty good enough for the 2-digit precision being used. The earth's field is indeed small. > 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. Nope. But you _DO_ need to specify how the satellite will measure the earthbound clock. Let me assume that this is done the same way the satellite clock was measured: once per day, at the same GPS time every day, the two clocks are compared. Then NECESSARILY the satellite clock will "observe" the earthbound clock to be 38 us/day behind itself. Because (obviously) earthbound clocks "observe" the satellite clocks to be 38 us/day ahead, and this is the same observation. Here I am assuming STANDARD CLOCKS, not the modified "clocks" that are actually in the satellites. Note the error in your approach: you ASSUMED "mutual time dilation", but that only holds for clocks at rest in INERTIAL FRAMES. The satellite is NOT at rest in such a frame, and the topological difference between a line and a circle is important. (Yours is essentially the same mistake kenseto repeatedly makes, but made in a slightly more sophisticated manner.) In a laboratory, put one clock on the edge of a rotating circular table, and put an identical one on the floor right next to the edge of the table, so the two clocks are adjacent once per rotation of the table. Comparing clocks when they are adjacent: the floor clock will observe the table clock to tick at a rate sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) times its own rate (v is the speed of the table clock relative to the room); the table clock will (obviously) observe the floor clock to tick at a rate 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) times its own rate, because these are the same observations. Bottom line: almost any calculation that simply applies "time dilation" will be wrong; one can ONLY use that for the SPECIFIC physical situation to which it applies: a clock moving relative to an inertial frame, measured in that frame. The GPS satellites are NOT at rest in any inertial frame, so "time dilation" can NOT be used to calculate what they might measure. The earthbound clocks are not at rest in a truly inertial frame either, but their non-inertialness is accounted for by the fact that GPS uses the ECI frame, and GPS time is defined on earth's geoid. For any clock at rest on the geoid, its motion relative to the ECI is already accounted for [#]; clocks not at rest on the geoid must correct for their speed and altitude relative to the geoid to obtain GPS (ECI) time. [#] Any such clock always displays the time that a co-located ECI coordinate clock would display (of course these don't physically exist). This is just the same approach used for the satellite clocks. Remember the ECI does not rotate, but does co-move with the center of the earth; it is really a locally inertial frame in the sense of GR, not in the sense of SR; here that distinction does not matter. NOTE: throughout my discussion, "clock" means a STANDARD clock. > 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. Nope. No "precision timing signals" are sent earth->satellite; what is sent is an observed offset (satellite clock relative to GPS official time). This offset is for "right now", and as an offset remains valid until the next value is uploaded. As the typical offsets are only a few nanoseconds, they are a tiny fraction of the 38 us over the next 24 hours (and that 38 us is of course already corrected for in the satellite clock's divider). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 18:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvr7pm$tfq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #367263 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:iMqdnX4itYLLj7zLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... On 10/14/15 10/14/15 - 11:16 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > [for a GPS satellite clock] >> the speed part is +7us/day and the gravitational effect >> is -45us/day for a total of -38us/day. |Yes. The '-' sign corresponds to the amount by which the satellite clock is Not so long ago you mumbled, that it's not a clock. Relativistic morons have always poor memory. I've told you you can't change these words. Particularly, when even you prefer old meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web