Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428798

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-15 12:14 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omtldq$dr4$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <28d564bf-9bdc-4b45-b0ab-f69f5b9b3584@googlegroups.com> <omo6a9$goc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <b939aa9d-2840-4381-aa4d-8f748d6bfd3e@googlegroups.com> <ompb2d$1vf5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5b18a291-d078-4d99-9c17-31096683da09@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 13/08/17 22:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:53:03 AM UTC-6, HGW... wrote:
>>
>> Ah! this is good. You are admitting that GPS clocks that change rates
>> after being sent into orbit actually do physically change. It has
>> nothing to do with Einstein after all.
> 
> Nope.  Cs atoms in atomic clocks operate in free fall, whether on earth
> or in orbit.  There is no mechanism by which they can "physically change."

But the only way to check that is to send one into orbit and then 
compare its new rate against that of a clock on the ground. If the clock 
hasn't changed, what has, shithead?.

> One of your objections to invariant light-speed is that there is no
> mechanism to make light invariant, therefore it can't be.  But you ignore
> that argument in the GPS question when it suits you.
> 
>> Well, now let's see. Say a GPS clock emits N ticks during the time the
>> Earth rotates precisely once. Let the same clock emit N+n ticks per
>> rotation when in orbit. Wouldn't you agree that this is a direct
>> indication that the clock has been physically affected by being launched
>> into orbit?
> 
> Where is the mechanism for this?  The clock is OFF during launch and the
> atoms are in freefall before and after launch.

The atoms are doing lots of things after launch that they were not doing 
beforehand....like whizzing through the Earth;s magnetic and gravity 
fields....so we can check for physical changes by checking its new rate.

>> ...Or to put hat another way, if you wanted to know if a clock had
>> changed after being sent into orbit, would it not be a good idea to
>> compare its rate before and after launch with the Earth's rotation
>> period, which can be used in both locations and certainly does not
>> change significantly in a few days?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense whatever.  The earth's rotation period varies
> with every earthquake and even every rocket launched into space.

It varies very little...too small to prevent clock checking. ...and its 
average period is actually monitored on a clock...which is naturally 
what one would use.

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg
> 
> As you can see, the length of the day varies by milliseconds whereas the
> time difference of atomic clocks in orbit is only 0.038 milliseconds.
> 
> Obviously, one would compare it to a similar clock that remained on the
> ground.  Your words amount to drivel.

The rate of the clock on the ground matches the average rate of the 
Earth. That gets rid of spurious varations.


--

Thread

csiph-web