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: Michael Moroney on 3 Aug 2010 15:12 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Aug 2, 2:44 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. >> >> You state this as if it were a proven fact. However, despite asking >> several times, you have never been able to supply any proof. >Hey idiot I told you several time that I didn't ask what you told me. I asked for proof, and so far you haven't been able to supply any. Where's your proof? (I won't hold my breath) > 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. The GPS clock isn't in synch with the ground clock. >> If anything, it's circular logic. In some posts, you claim that if A sees >> B's clock as running slow, then B will see A's clock as running fast. >That my theory. Don't state it as if it's proven fact then, and don't try to shy away from the fact your theory conflicts with SR. >>Then >> in other posts, like this one, you take your GPS prediction as if it was a >> proven fact to "prove" your claim about the two moving clock. >Hey idiot I said in this post I take the position that Tvb/Ta is not >equal to Tva/Tb. We need to do the experiemnt to see if I am right or >wrong. That type of experiment has been done, and you are wrong.
From: kenseto on 3 Aug 2010 18:18 On Aug 3, 3:12 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Aug 2, 2:44 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > > >> You state this as if it were a proven fact. However, despite asking > >> several times, you have never been able to supply any proof. > >Hey idiot I told you several time that > > I didn't ask what you told me. I asked for proof, and so far you haven't > been able to supply any. Where's your proof? (I won't hold my breath) Since you claim SR mutual time dilation is valid between the GPS clock and the ground clock why don't you give us the proof?? > > > 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. > > The GPS clock isn't in synch with the ground clock. Hey idiot that's why they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redefined GPS second makes the GPS clcok in synch with the ground clock permanently. > > >> If anything, it's circular logic. In some posts, you claim that if A sees > >> B's clock as running slow, then B will see A's clock as running fast. > >That my theory. > > Don't state it as if it's proven fact then, and don't try to shy away > from the fact your theory conflicts with SR. No idiot my theory includes SR as a subset. My theory predicts that an observed clcok can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run fast by a factor of gamma. Ken Seto > > >>Then > >> in other posts, like this one, you take your GPS prediction as if it was a > >> proven fact to "prove" your claim about the two moving clock. > >Hey idiot I said in this post I take the position that Tvb/Ta is not > >equal to Tva/Tb. We need to do the experiemnt to see if I am right or > >wrong. > > That type of experiment has been done, and you are wrong.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 20:37 On 8/3/10 5:25 PM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot we can do the experiment with the GPS clock and the > International Station clock. All we need to do is to put a TV camera > on each clock and comare its rate with the real clock in each frame. > If the ratio is equal than nutual time dilation is confirmed. > > Ken Seto And what's the scan rate of the TV camera... and how grossly under sampled is the data? Give us a break Seto... we can already receive the clock cycles. But GPS Satellite clocks require the application of general relativity, not special relativity to predict the observable result accurately. Why can't you "get it"?
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 21:06 On 8/3/10 5:08 PM, kenseto wrote: > Sigh....Doppler corrections and distance of separation got nothing to > do with it. You determine the ratios between the TV clocks with the > observer's clock and compare them numerically. Seto, you need some school'n in the Doppler Effect! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
From: Michael Moroney on 3 Aug 2010 21:33
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Aug 3, 3:12 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Hey idiot I told you several time that >> >> I didn't ask what you told me. I asked for proof, and so far you haven't >> been able to supply any. Where's your proof? (I won't hold my breath) >Since you claim SR mutual time dilation is valid between the GPS clock >and the ground clock why don't you give us the proof?? Follow the link that Sam W. has asked you to read about two dozen times so far. So, where's your proof? >> > 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. >> >> The GPS clock isn't in synch with the ground clock. >Hey idiot that's why they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more >periods of Cs 133 radiation. Once again, you state your claim as if it was a proven fact. Not only that, this claim of yours is one you have been corrected on several times. >> Don't state it as if it's proven fact then, and don't try to shy away >> from the fact your theory conflicts with SR. >No idiot my theory includes SR as a subset. My theory predicts that an >observed clcok can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run fast by a >factor of gamma. The second sentence contradicts the first. Learn what it means for a theory to be a subset of another. The superset theory *cannot* contradict the subset theory. |