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: kenseto on 5 Aug 2010 08:53 On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/4/10 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 3:02 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 8/4/10 1:03 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > >>> Doppler effect got nothing to do with my proposed experiment. The TV > > >>> clock is compared to the observer's clock to get a ratio for a specfic > > >>> interval on the observer's clcok, such as 84000 seconds, to give a > > >>> ratio of (TV clock time interval)/observer's clock time interval) > > > >>> The rest of your ranting is due to your misunderstanding of the > > >>> experiment. > > > >>> Ken Seto > > > >> Seto the data will be Doppler shifted. Do some self education! > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect > > > > Hey idiot....the rate of the TV clock will not change whether it is > > > approaching you or receding away from you. Satellite TV works because > > > Doppler effect does not change the reception rate of the picture. > > > > Ken Seto > > > Betcha didn't know that TV satellites are in stationary orbits with > > respect to ground receivers. Got egg on your face, Seto? > > Yeah, Betcha that he didn't even *click* on the link to the paper on > DvB-H that explains all that stuff ... it's more difficult to educate > in 10 years* time someone who is unable and unwilling to learn than to > teach the same in one or two weeks to an average student. So I'll > abandon him again. > > Harald > > * I'm afraid that 10 years is not even an exaggeration!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 5 Aug 2010 08:58 On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/4/10 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 3:02 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 8/4/10 1:03 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > >>> Doppler effect got nothing to do with my proposed experiment. The TV > > >>> clock is compared to the observer's clock to get a ratio for a specfic > > >>> interval on the observer's clcok, such as 84000 seconds, to give a > > >>> ratio of (TV clock time interval)/observer's clock time interval) > > > >>> The rest of your ranting is due to your misunderstanding of the > > >>> experiment. > > > >>> Ken Seto > > > >> Seto the data will be Doppler shifted. Do some self education! > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect > > > > Hey idiot....the rate of the TV clock will not change whether it is > > > approaching you or receding away from you. Satellite TV works because > > > Doppler effect does not change the reception rate of the picture. > > > > Ken Seto > > > Betcha didn't know that TV satellites are in stationary orbits with > > respect to ground receivers. Got egg on your face, Seto? > > Yeah, Betcha that he didn't even *click* on the link to the paper on > DvB-H that explains all that stuff ... it's more difficult to educate > in 10 years* time someone who is unable and unwilling to learn than to > teach the same in one or two weeks to an average student. So I'll > abandon him again. Harald, In order for you to teach me you need to know more about the subject than me. You can't even understand that the objective of my proposed experiment is simply to get the ratio for the rate of the TV clock vs the rate of the observer's clcok.....Doppler effect got nothing to do with the proposed experiment. > > Harald > > * I'm afraid that 10 years is not even an exaggeration!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Aug 2010 10:05 On 8/5/10 7:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > > We are talking about the ISS clock and that GPS clock. > > Ken Seto > Clocks on board the International Space Station are in a different gravitational well that GPS satellite clocks. Therefore, to predict time dilation of one from the perspective of the other, general relativity is the tool that will correctly predict the effect. See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: kenseto on 5 Aug 2010 11:19 On Aug 5, 10:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/5/10 7:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > We are talking about the ISS clock and that GPS clock. > > > Ken Seto > > Clocks on board the International Space Station are in a > different gravitational well that GPS satellite clocks. > Therefore, to predict time dilation of one from the perspective > of the other, general relativity is the tool that will > correctly predict the effect. Sigh....I don't care. I want to know the ratio of the rate of the GPS- TV clock vs the rate of the ISS clock in the ISS location....and the ratio of the rate of the ISS-TV clock vs the GPS clock in the GPS location. No calculation is needed. Ken Seto > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.....
From: Paul B. Andersen on 5 Aug 2010 15:26
On 05.08.2010 01:16, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Aug 3, 9:27 am, harald wrote: > >> BTW this is an old topic but with a slightly different presentation: >> http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/18921/Testing-mutual-time-dilation > > The second post by Professor Roberts has a wrong conclusion on > relativistic Doppler effect. The Lorentz transform actually leads to > a reverse Doppler effect. Where have the self-styled physicist been > in the past 100 years? See the following recent posts by yours truly > at: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c06938d96ee7f84d?hl=en > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fddbda5c1bb76e80?hl=en > > <shrug> So can you please point out the error in the following derivation? A wave propagating in the positive x direction in the unprimed frame can be written: E cos(phi(t,x)) where phi(t,x) = wt - (w/c)x Let the primed frame be moving at v along the positive x-axis. The same wave transformed to the primed frame can be written: E' cos(phi'(t',x')) where phi'(t',x') = w't' - (w'/c)x' Applying the LT transform: t = g(t' + vx'/c^2) x = g(x' + vt') g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) yields: wt - (w/c)x = wg((t' + vx'/c^2) - (w/c)g(x' + vt') = wg(1-v/c)t' - (w/c)g(1-v/c)x' = w't' - (w'/c)x' Thus: w' = wg(1-v/c) = w sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) The wave is red shifted in the primed frame. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |