From: David Evens on
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:21:27 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:14:02 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:05:53 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:36:58 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:36:29 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>George, when the clock is launched, both obserevrs agree that its rate has
>>>>>increased by the same amount. GR is incompatible with that finding....plain and
>>>>>simple...
>>>>
>>>>In what manner is the prediction (of GR) that clocks in orbit are
>>>>observed to run at different rates than clocks on the surface
>>>>incompatible with GR? Or are you just making another of your grossly
>>>>ignorant vomitings?
>>>
>>>If you don't know the GR explanation for the GPS clock rate increase then why
>>>don't you ask Andersen or Roberts.
>>
>>Henry, we don't need you to AGAIN demonstrate that you didn't read the
>>post you were replying to.
>
>Look at it this way. Both obserevrs use the same clock to measure the time
>duration of the orbit.
>When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit takes N
>ticks.

Not that it could matter.

>When it is in orbit, both observers agree that it takes N+n ticks.

Not tha it could matter.

>It is pretty bloody obvious that the only thing which has changed is the clock.
>The orbit certainly hasn't and nor have the observers.

Why do you assume that the clock is different sokehow because it is in
a different place? Or are you just dedicated tyo your religious
prejudice that there is a prefered state of rest?

>HW.
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
>The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.

I would point out that we didn't need you to AGAIN demonstrate that
you didn't read the post you were replying to, but you didn't read the
post the last time I did that, so...
From: kenseto on


Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:42:27 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> >news:32sld19kn75a9laktbfe3srh76rtjj0uch(a)4ax.com...
>
> >> >> According to GR, there is no physical change of the clock,
> >> >> it keeps running at its proper rate.
> >> >
> >> >This statement is meaningless.
> >>
> >> If you are agreeing with me that the GR STATEMENT is meaningles, then I
> >agree.
> >> If you claim MY statement is meaningless, then I would like to know why.
> >
> >You were comparing an absolute interval of time (an orbit) with clock time
> >(ticks of a clock). That's why you get the disagreement. When SR says that
> >the proper rate of a clock doesn't change it means that the defintion for proper
> >rate doesn't change....ie one second/second at the rest frame of the clock.
>
> Yes that's all very clear, Ken.
>
> How do you define the 'seconds' in your 'one second/second'?
>
> >>
> >> >All you are saying is that the proper rate of
> >> >a clock is according to definition (one second per second) in all frames.
> >> >The problem is that each clock has its own proper rate but this proper
> >rate
> >> >does not correspond to the proper rate of another clock moving wrt it.
> >IOW,
> >> >the passage of a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the
> >> >passage of a clock second in another frame.
> >>
> >> That's why I use the orbit duration as a common time reference.
> >> It has only one REAL value..... whatever that value IS does not matter one
> >> iota.
> >
> >An orbit is common interval of absolute time but it can have different clock
> >time values in different frames. Why? Because the absolute time content for
> >a clock second is different in different frames (different state of
> >absolute motion). BTW that's the reason why the speed of light is a constant
> >math ratio in all frames as follows:
> >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
> >clock second co-moving with the rod.
>
> Ken, there is an observer in the proposed orbit and another on the ground.

So what?....You are an idiot. The SRians define time is what the clock
measures. That's why they can say that the proper rate of passage of
time for a clock doesn't change. That's why they attribute the
different elapsed time for the twin is due to the different spacetime
paths....not different rates of the clocks.

>
> They both agree that the clock ticks at N ticks/orbit before launch and N+n
> ticks/orbit after launch.
>
> Nothing has changed except the clock.

You are hopless.
>
> If you cannot see that then there is absolutely no hope for you.
> You should immediately cease posting to a physics group.

ROTFLOL....Pot calling the kettle black.

Ken Seto

From: Henri Wilson on
On 19 Jul 2005 09:05:52 -0700, kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote:

>
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:42:27 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>> >news:32sld19kn75a9laktbfe3srh76rtjj0uch(a)4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >> According to GR, there is no physical change of the clock,
>> >> >> it keeps running at its proper rate.
>> >> >
>> >> >This statement is meaningless.
>> >>
>> >> If you are agreeing with me that the GR STATEMENT is meaningles, then I
>> >agree.
>> >> If you claim MY statement is meaningless, then I would like to know why.
>> >
>> >You were comparing an absolute interval of time (an orbit) with clock time
>> >(ticks of a clock). That's why you get the disagreement. When SR says that
>> >the proper rate of a clock doesn't change it means that the defintion for proper
>> >rate doesn't change....ie one second/second at the rest frame of the clock.

>> Yes that's all very clear, Ken.
>>
>> How do you define the 'seconds' in your 'one second/second'?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >All you are saying is that the proper rate of
>> >> >a clock is according to definition (one second per second) in all frames.
>> >> >The problem is that each clock has its own proper rate but this proper
>> >rate
>> >> >does not correspond to the proper rate of another clock moving wrt it.
>> >IOW,
>> >> >the passage of a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the
>> >> >passage of a clock second in another frame.
>> >>
>> >> That's why I use the orbit duration as a common time reference.
>> >> It has only one REAL value..... whatever that value IS does not matter one
>> >> iota.
>> >
>> >An orbit is common interval of absolute time but it can have different clock
>> >time values in different frames. Why? Because the absolute time content for
>> >a clock second is different in different frames (different state of
>> >absolute motion). BTW that's the reason why the speed of light is a constant
>> >math ratio in all frames as follows:
>> >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
>> >clock second co-moving with the rod.
>>
>> Ken, there is an observer in the proposed orbit and another on the ground.
>
>So what?....You are an idiot. The SRians define time is what the clock
>measures. That's why they can say that the proper rate of passage of
>time for a clock doesn't change. That's why they attribute the
>different elapsed time for the twin is due to the different spacetime
>paths....not different rates of the clocks.

In that case, the OO should count N-n ticks/orbit before launch.

Another assignment for Paul Andersen's tick fairies.

>
>>
>> They both agree that the clock ticks at N ticks/orbit before launch and N+n
>> ticks/orbit after launch.
>>
>> Nothing has changed except the clock.
>
>You are hopless.

What has changed other than the clock, Ken?

>>
>> If you cannot see that then there is absolutely no hope for you.
>> You should immediately cease posting to a physics group.
>
>ROTFLOL....Pot calling the kettle black.
>
>Ken Seto


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:38:18 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 01:21:27 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:14:02 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com>
>>wrote:

>Not that it could matter.
>
>>When it is in orbit, both observers agree that it takes N+n ticks.
>
>Not tha it could matter.
>
>>It is pretty bloody obvious that the only thing which has changed is the clock.
>>The orbit certainly hasn't and nor have the observers.
>
>Why do you assume that the clock is different sokehow because it is in
>a different place? Or are you just dedicated tyo your religious
>prejudice that there is a prefered state of rest?
>

>>The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
>
>I would point out that we didn't need you to AGAIN demonstrate that
>you didn't read the post you were replying to, but you didn't read the
>post the last time I did that, so...

Evens, I like that gravitational theory of yours. Is it original?


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: kenseto on
>>> Ken, there is an observer in the proposed orbit and another on the ground.


>>So what?....You are an idiot. The SRians define time is what the clock
>>measures. That's why they can say that the proper rate of passage of
>>time for a clock doesn't change. That's why they attribute the
>>different elapsed time for the twin is due to the different spacetime
>>paths....not different rates of the clocks.



>In that case, the OO should count N-n ticks/orbit before launch.

The OO does count N+n ticks before launch. Why? They redefine the GPS
clock second to have N+n tick while it is still on the ground.
Your problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the phrase
"Proper Rate". It does not mean the same rate when compared to other
clocks.

Ken Seto