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 21:43 On Aug 3, 6:33 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. There are always two times that slow down to take into account for matter. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 4 Aug 2010 09:22 On Aug 3, 9:06 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Hey idiot Doppler effect got nothing to do with the proposed experiment.
From: kenseto on 4 Aug 2010 10:10 On Aug 3, 9:33 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. That link does not prove that the SR concept of mutual time dilation is applicable to the GPS clock as you claimed. > > So, where's your proof? You made the claim so you show 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. > > 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.. Hey idiot they reset the GPS second to contain 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > >> 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. IRT math is a super set of SR math. IRT does not have to include the bogus SR interpretations to be its super set.
From: Tony M on 4 Aug 2010 11:33 On Aug 4, 9:57 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > So every observer > does not know if the observed clock is running slow or fast compared > to his clock. This means that he must include both possibilities when > predicting the rate of an observed clock as follows: > Observed clcok runs slow: > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) > Observed clock runs fast: > Delta(t')=Delta(t)/gamma Ken, why not Delta(t)/gamma <= Delta(t') <= gamma*Delta(t)? Think about it!
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Aug 2010 13:26
On 8/4/10 8:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 3, 9:06 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 > > Hey idiot Doppler effect got nothing to do with the proposed > experiment. You can't do a real experiment without taking Doppler Effect into account, Seto! |