Experiment to test mutual time dilation
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Next: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 00:14 On Aug 2, 8:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 10:21 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:16 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > > >> >    Take, for example two astronaut with clocks in intergalactic > >> >    space, where we can ignore gravitational effects.. We will also ignore > >> >    the effects of Doppler shift here. > > >> >    A and B are observers with identical clocks. That is A and B's > >> >    clocks ticked synchronously when they were together. > > >> >    ât represent a time interval between tick of the clocks. > > >> >    Special relativity predicts that observer A will measure that > >> >     ât_B' = γ ât_B > > >> >    where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >> >    between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > >> >    Furthermore, special relativity predicts that observer B will > >> >    measure that > >> >     ât_A' = γ ât_A > > >> >    Neither measure the other's clock running fast. But each measures > >> >    the other's clock running slow. > > >> >    Here's the part Seto's brain can't seem to handle. Seto can be > >> >    observer A or Seto can be observer B. Seto cannot be both > >> >    simultaneously. There is no contradiction. Special Relativity > >> >    correctly predicts the observation. > > No idiot....A or B cannot assumes that his clock is running faster > > than the observed clock....to do so would mean that the observer is > > assumoing that he is in a preferred frame. > >   Who's the idiot? You have no understanding of special relativity, >   Seto. I would think you would find that highly embarrassing, to flaunt >   your ignorance in a public forum such as USENET over so many years.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Either one clock goes slower than the other of they go mutually slow. But if they are mutually slow one cannot age more than the other. There is no lost time and I can demonstrate it. What about it Sam? Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 3 Aug 2010 09:17 On Aug 2, 11:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 10:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > Hey idiot I told you several time that if the GPS sees the ground > > clock runs slow by 53us/day then the 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 > > radiation adjustment for the GPS second would not make the GPS clock > > in synch with the ground clock permanently. > > Who's the idiot? Read: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks You are the idiot. > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.....
From: kenseto on 3 Aug 2010 09:19 On Aug 2, 11:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 10:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/2/10 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> A and B are in relative motion. > >>> 1. A sends a TV picture of his clock to B. > >>> 2. B sends a TV picture of his clock to A. > >>> 3. A measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it > >>> to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of B and call this > >>> ratio as Tvb/Ta. > >>> 4. B measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it > >>> to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of A and call this > >>> ratio as Tva/Tb. > > >>> Conclusions: > >>> 1. If Tvb/Ta=Tva/Tb > >>> Mutual time dilation is confirmed. > > >>> 2. If Tvb/Ta is not equal to Tva/Tb. > >>> Mutual time dilation is refuted. > > >>> I am betting on #2. > >>> BTW, my bet is supported by the GPS clock compared to the ground > >>> clock. The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7us/day running slow > >>> compared > >>> to the ground clock. > >>> From the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is NOT > >>> 7us/day running slow compared to the GPS clock. In fact it is ~7us/day > >>> running fast. > > >>> Ken Seto > > >> Seto FAILS to understand that comparing GPS satellite clocks and GPS > >> ground clocks requires general relativity to correctly predict the > >> differences from either perspective. > > > Hey idiot....I was talking about the SR effect only. From the ground > > clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running > > slow. Fron the GPS point of view the SR effect on the grouncd clock is > > ~7us/day running fast. > > Who's the idiot. SR is the wrong tool for satellite clocks. One needs > general relativity to correctly predict the differences from either > perspective. Hey idiot we are talking about the SR effect only. > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5..... > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 3 Aug 2010 09:23 On Aug 2, 11:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 10:21 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:16 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > > >> >    Take, for example two astronaut with clocks in intergalactic > >> >    space, where we can ignore gravitational effects.. We will also ignore > >> >    the effects of Doppler shift here. > > >> >    A and B are observers with identical clocks. That is A and B's > >> >    clocks ticked synchronously when they were together. > > >> >    ât represent a time interval between tick of the clocks. > > >> >    Special relativity predicts that observer A will measure that > >> >     ât_B' = γ ât_B > > >> >    where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >> >    between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > >> >    Furthermore, special relativity predicts that observer B will > >> >    measure that > >> >     ât_A' = γ ât_A > > >> >    Neither measure the other's clock running fast. But each measures > >> >    the other's clock running slow. > > >> >    Here's the part Seto's brain can't seem to handle. Seto can be > >> >    observer A or Seto can be observer B. Seto cannot be both > >> >    simultaneously. There is no contradiction. Special Relativity > >> >    correctly predicts the observation. > > No idiot....A or B cannot assumes that his clock is running faster > > than the observed clock....to do so would mean that the observer is > > assumoing that he is in a preferred frame. > >   Who's the idiot? You are the idiot. >You have no understanding of special relativity, ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. >   Seto. I would think you would find that highly embarrassing, to flaunt >   your ignorance in a public forum such as USENET over so many years. It is you who should be embarrassed....you show no understanding of physics. All you do is copy and paste. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 09:50
On 8/3/10 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 2, 11:16 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Who's the idiot. SR is the wrong tool for satellite clocks. One needs >> general relativity to correctly predict the differences from either >> perspective. > > Hey idiot we are talking about the SR effect only. Not if you are going to use [GPS] satellite clock in your argument! > >> >> See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks >> >> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html >> |