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

Groups > sci.physics > #580152 > unrolled thread

Re: Questions for Eisteinians

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:50 -0700
    Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:23 -0700
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 16:50 +0000
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:58 -0700
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 21:39 +0000
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 17:11 -0500
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 02:53 +0000
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:42 -0700
                Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:51 -0500
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:32 -0700
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:02 -0500

#580152 — Re: Questions for Eisteinians

Le lundi 23 mai 2016 23:51:24 UTC+2, kenseto a écrit :

> > Reminder that mutual 
> > time dilation has been measured.
> 
> No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. The GPS point of view the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow and from the ground clock point of view the GPS is running 38 us/day running fast. To correct this they modified the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This modification make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard earth second.

Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time dilation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#580369

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le lundi 23 mai 2016 23:51:24 UTC+2, kenseto a écrit :
> 
> > > Reminder that mutual 
> > > time dilation has been measured.
> > 
> > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. The GPS point of view the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow and from the ground clock point of view the GPS is running 38 us/day runnng fast. To correct this they modified the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This modification make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard earth second.
> 
> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time dilation.

GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast
GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow.
The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast.

The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast.

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

#580399

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
>> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation 
>> due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed 
>> by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by 
>> both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time 
>> dilation.

>GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast
>GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow.
>The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast.

>The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of 
>view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of 
>view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast.

Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken?

>> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation 
>> due to gravity.

The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it!

You really need to learn SR someday. One of the things you need to learn is
when SR can, and can't, be applied.

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

#580484

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:50:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation 
> >> due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed 
> >> by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by 
> >> both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time 
> >> dilation.
> 
> >GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast
> >GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow.
> >The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast.
> 
> >The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of 
> >view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of 
> >view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast.
> 
> Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken?
> 
> >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation 
> >> due to gravity.
> 
> The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it!

Idiot I didn't use SR to solve anything. I pointed out that the SR effect in the GR equation rejects the idea of mutual time dilation.
> 
> You really need to learn SR someday. One of the things you need to learn is
> when SR can, and can't, be applied.

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

#580497

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:50:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast
>> >GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow.
>> >The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast.
>> 
>> >The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of 
>> >view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of 
>> >view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast.
>> 
>> Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken?
>> 
>> >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation 
>> >> due to gravity.
>> 
>> The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it!

>Idiot I didn't use SR to solve anything. I pointed out that the SR effect 
>in the GR equation rejects the idea of mutual time dilation.

People have pointed out many times you can't really split a GR problem
into a GR+SR problem.

But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight
line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's
really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time 
dilation problem.

>> You really need to learn SR someday. One of the things you need to learn is
>> when SR can, and can't, be applied.

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

#580500

On 5/25/2016 4:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight
> line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's
> really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time
> dilation problem.

Seto repeatedly uses cases where clocks meet twice or go around a closed 
path to say mutual time dilation is disproven. What he doesn't seem to 
get is that mutual time dilation is NEVER a prediction of SR when clocks 
make a round trip.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#580553

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 5/25/2016 4:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight
>> line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's
>> really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time
>> dilation problem.

>Seto repeatedly uses cases where clocks meet twice or go around a closed 
>path to say mutual time dilation is disproven. What he doesn't seem to 
>get is that mutual time dilation is NEVER a prediction of SR when clocks 
>make a round trip.

You're right. Seto always has a canned response to mutual time dilation
problems that read like: "No it is not possible....How can you have mutual 
time dilation when a B second is worth gamma seconds on the A clock 
BETWEEN MEETINGS?" [emphasis mine].  If he thinks there are more than one
meeting in mutual time dilation situations, he simply doesn't understand 
mutual time dilation, or confuses it with the travelling twin gedanken.

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

#580691

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 4:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> >
> > But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight
> > line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's
> > really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time
> > dilation problem.
> 
> Seto repeatedly uses cases where clocks meet twice or go around a closed 
> path to say mutual time dilation is disproven. What he doesn't seem to 
> get is that mutual time dilation is NEVER a prediction of SR when clocks 
> make a round trip.

ROTFLOL.....so SR applies only when ODD said so? And SR applies in scenarios that cannot be tested experimentally.....no close path means no direct comparison. That means that mutual time dilation is just pure assertion.

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

#580692

On 5/26/2016 11:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 4:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight
>>> line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's
>>> really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time
>>> dilation problem.
>>
>> Seto repeatedly uses cases where clocks meet twice or go around a closed
>> path to say mutual time dilation is disproven. What he doesn't seem to
>> get is that mutual time dilation is NEVER a prediction of SR when clocks
>> make a round trip.
>
> ROTFLOL.....so SR applies only when ODD said so?

No, SR applies only when SR says so.
If you do not know how and when to apply SR predictions, that's YOUR 
fault, not the fault of the theory.

> And SR applies in scenarios
> that cannot be tested experimentally.....no close path means no direct comparison.

That's simply not true, Ken. Mutual time dilation has been verified 
experimentally in the conditions where SR says it should apply, and 
that's where there is no closed path. Since it HAS been verified 
experimentally, you look pretty stupid claiming that it can't be tested 
experimentally.

I'll reiterate, Ken, that just because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW doesn't mean 
it's impossible.

> That means that mutual time dilation is just pure assertion.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#580690

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 5:39:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:50:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast
> >> >GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow.
> >> >The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast.
> >> 
> >> >The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of 
> >> >view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of 
> >> >view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast.
> >> 
> >> Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken?
> >> 
> >> >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation 
> >> >> due to gravity.
> >> 
> >> The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it!
> 
> >Idiot I didn't use SR to solve anything. I pointed out that the SR effect 
> >in the GR equation rejects the idea of mutual time dilation.
> 
> People have pointed out many times you can't really split a GR problem
> into a GR+SR problem.

Yes you can and they do that exactly.

> 
> But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight
> line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's
> really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time 
> dilation problem.

It doesn't matter Gravity and the SR effect are used to calculate the GR effect.

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

#580696

On 5/26/16 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 5:39:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> People have pointed out many times you can't really split a GR problem
>> into a GR+SR problem.

> Yes you can and they do that exactly.
>

   No, Seto, this is another of your misunderstandings because you refuse
   to learn relativity.

   Relativity in the Global Positioning System
 > 
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf

> Abstract
> The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic
> clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position
> and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional
> frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully
> accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not
> work. This paper discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special
> and general relativity, for navigation using GPS. Relativistic
> principles and effects which must be considered include the constancy
> of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect,
> time dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of
> synchronization. Experimental tests of relativity obtained with a GPS
> receiver aboard the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite will be discussed.
> Recently frequency jumps arising from satellite orbit adjustments
> have been identified as relativistic effects. These will be explained
> and some interesting applications of GPS will be discussed.



--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web