SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 28 Mar 2010 08:49 On Mar 27, 9:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> You didn't answer the questions. How many seconds of "absolute time" > >> correspond to 1 second of the first rocket's time? =A01 second of the > >> second rocket's time? > >Sigh.... > >According to SR: > >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock. > >2.Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. > >According to IRT: > >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock OR this amount of > >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ab > >seconds)on the B clock. > >2. Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock OR this amount of > >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ba > >seconds) on the A clock. > > OK, you're still unwilling to come up with a number. So, let's solve this > problem. Let "X" is the conversion factor between absolute time and "A" > time. We define X such that 1 second of "A" time correspond to X seconds > of absolute time. We're solving for "X", then once we know "X", we can > find the absolute time that corresponds to a second of A and B time. NO....if A is the observer his clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time or 1 second of absolute time....not X amount of absolute time as you said. This amount of absolute time (1 A second) is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock. What this mean is that 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. BTW why did you ignored my post completely? If you plug in gamma=2 you will get the correct answers. > > Since "A" sees "B"'s clock running at half its rate, so that 1 second of > "B" time corresponds to 2 seconds of "A" time, therefore "B"'s second > corresponds to 2X seconds of absolute time. NO, NO....according to SR 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. Ken Seto > , by definition, 1 A second is equal > to X seconds of absolute time. Therefore, it must be true that X = 4X. > Solving for X, X=0. > However, "B" sees "A"'s clock running at half its rate, so that 1 second > of "A" time corresponds to 2 seconds of "B" time. So, "A"'s second > corresponds to 2*(2X) seconds of absolute time, or an A second is > 4X seconds of absolute time. But > > But wait! 1 second is thus 0*<absolute time>. If we want to solve for > the absolute time, it is 1/0! One divided by zero! "B" time is similar, > it is 1/(2*0)! "A" time again is 1/(4*0), but since 4*0 is 0, it becomes > 1/0, which, I think, might be equal to the first 1/0. However, I learned > in math class "thou shalt not divide by zero". So, I can only conclude > that "absolute time" is simply nonsense.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Mar 2010 09:39 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Mar 27, 9:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> You didn't answer the questions. How many seconds of "absolute time" >> >> correspond to 1 second of the first rocket's time? 1 second of the >> >> second rocket's time? >> >Sigh.... >> >According to SR: >> >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >> >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock. >> >2.Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >> >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. >> >According to IRT: >> >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >> >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock OR this amount of >> >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ab >> >seconds)on the B clock. >> >2. Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >> >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock OR this amount of >> >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ba >> >seconds) on the A clock. >> >> OK, you're still unwilling to come up with a number. So, let's solve this >> problem. Let "X" is the conversion factor between absolute time and "A" >> time. We define X such that 1 second of "A" time correspond to X seconds >> of absolute time. We're solving for "X", then once we know "X", we can >> find the absolute time that corresponds to a second of A and B time. >NO....if A is the observer his clock second represents a specific >amount of absolute time or 1 second of absolute time....not X amount >of absolute time as you said. As I said, X is the conversion factor between absolute time and observed time. If they're the same. X=1.0. > This amount of absolute time (1 A >second) is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second on >the B clock. Here you say X=1/gamma_ab. > What this mean is that 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock >represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A >clock. OK. >BTW why did you ignored my post completely? If you plug in gamma=2 you >will get the correct answers. From that I saw X=0.5, but I did a different approach to get a consistent answer. >> >> Since "A" sees "B"'s clock running at half its rate, so that 1 second of >> "B" time corresponds to 2 seconds of "A" time, therefore "B"'s second >> corresponds to 2X seconds of absolute time. >NO, NO....according to SR 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents >the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. Which is what I just said! >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. First, all that makes the "B" frame special, specifically absolute. SR says there are no absolute frames. I also stated the problem so that there were no "special" frames, not even accidentally. Second, if I do the exact same thing swapping A and B, I get the same result, except frame "A" is special, and I do believe you'd say that 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. So.... if 1/2 second on the B clock is the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock, AND if 1/2 second on the A clock is the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the B clock, and we do the math to see how many seconds of absolute time correspond to 1 second on both the A and B clocks, we don't get 2, we get the impossible figure 1/0. So,.... the concept of "absolute time" is internally inconsistent.
From: kenseto on 28 Mar 2010 17:59 On Mar 28, 9:39 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 27, 9:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >> You didn't answer the questions. How many seconds of "absolute time" > >> >> correspond to 1 second of the first rocket's time? 1 second of the > >> >> second rocket's time? > >> >Sigh.... > >> >According to SR: > >> >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >> >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock. > >> >2.Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >> >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. > >> >According to IRT: > >> >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >> >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock OR this amount of > >> >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ab > >> >seconds)on the B clock. > >> >2. Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute > >> >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock > >> >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock OR this amount of > >> >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ba > >> >seconds) on the A clock. > > >> OK, you're still unwilling to come up with a number. So, let's solve this > >> problem. Let "X" is the conversion factor between absolute time and "A" > >> time. We define X such that 1 second of "A" time correspond to X seconds > >> of absolute time. We're solving for "X", then once we know "X", we can > >> find the absolute time that corresponds to a second of A and B time. > >NO....if A is the observer his clock second represents a specific > >amount of absolute time or 1 second of absolute time....not X amount > >of absolute time as you said. > > As I said, X is the conversion factor between absolute time and observed > time. If they're the same. X=1.0. No there is no conversion factor between absolute time and observed time. The A observer predicts that an interval of absolute time in his frame such as his clock second represented by a clock reading of (1/ gamma_ab second) on the B clock. > > > This amount of absolute time (1 A > >second) is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second on > >the B clock. > > Here you say X=1/gamma_ab. > > > What this mean is that 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock > >represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A > >clock. > > OK. > > >BTW why did you ignored my post completely? If you plug in gamma=2 you > >will get the correct answers. > > From that I saw X=0.5, but I did a different approach to get a consistent > answer. > > > > >> Since "A" sees "B"'s clock running at half its rate, so that 1 second of > >> "B" time corresponds to 2 seconds of "A" time, therefore "B"'s second > >> corresponds to 2X seconds of absolute time. > >NO, NO....according to SR 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents > >the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. > > Which is what I just said! > > >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a > >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is > >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. > >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. > > First, all that makes the "B" frame special, specifically absolute. No...that does not make the B frame absolute. It only says that the B second will contain a specific amount of absolute time. > SR says there are no absolute frames. I also stated the problem > so that there were no "special" frames, not even accidentally. SR doesn't say no absolute frame. SR says that all frames are equivalent, including the absolute rest frame. That's why every SR observer the absolute rest frame to do calculations. THat's why every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame....that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all th erulers moivng wrt him are contracted. > > Second, if I do the exact same thing swapping A and B, I get the same > result, except frame "A" is special, and I do believe you'd say that > 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute > time as 1 second on the A clock. Here's your problem....A will measure B to have different velocity than B will measure A. Why? Because A's clock second contains a different amount of absolute time than B's clock second. That means that: 1/gamma_ab =/= 1/gamma_ba > > So.... if 1/2 second on the B clock is the same amount of absolute time > as 1 second on the A clock, Yes according to the SR observer A. > AND if 1/2 second on the A clock is the same > amount of absolute time as 1 second on the B clock, No B will measure A to have different velocity than .866 c and thus he predicts that B's clock second is repensented by (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. Ken Seto and we do the math > to see how many seconds of absolute time correspond to 1 second on both > the A and B clocks, we don't get 2, we get the impossible figure 1/0. > > So,.... the concept of "absolute time" is internally inconsistent.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Mar 2010 19:10 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Mar 28, 9:39 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> As I said, X is the conversion factor between absolute time and observed >> time. If they're the same. X=1.0. >No there is no conversion factor between absolute time and observed >time. The A observer predicts that an interval of absolute time in his >frame such as his clock second represented by a clock reading of (1/ >gamma_ab second) on the B clock. These two sentences contradict each other. First, you say there is no conversion factor, then in the very next sentence, you say the conversion factor is (1/gamma_ab). >> >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a >> >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is >> >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. >> >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. >> >> First, all that makes the "B" frame special, specifically absolute. >No...that does not make the B frame absolute. It only says that the B >second will contain a specific amount of absolute time. If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it has to be special. >> SR says there are no absolute frames. =A0I also stated the problem >> so that there were no "special" frames, not even accidentally. >SR doesn't say no absolute frame. SR says that all frames are >equivalent, including the absolute rest frame. Again, these two sentences contradict each other. Actually the second sentence contradicts itself, the part before the comma (all frames are equivalent, there's a "different" frame that's the absolute rest frame) > That's why every SR >observer the absolute rest frame to do calculations. This sentence no verb. > THat's why every >SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest >frame....that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all >th erulers moivng wrt him are contracted. You appear to have confused the phrase "absolute rest frame" and "reference frame". Maybe, instead of "absolute time" you really mean "reference time" of some sort? (yes, I know) >> Second, if I do the exact same thing swapping A and B, I get the same >> result, except frame "A" is special, and I do believe you'd say that >> 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute >> time as 1 second on the A clock. >Here's your problem....A will measure B to have different velocity >than B will measure A. Why? Because A's clock second contains a >different amount of absolute time than B's clock second. That means >that: 1/gamma_ab =/= 1/gamma_ba How could A and B see each other as having anything other than equal and opposite velocities? >> So.... if 1/2 second on the B clock is the same amount of absolute time >> as 1 second on the A clock, >Yes according to the SR observer A. >> AND if 1/2 second on the A clock is the same >> amount of absolute time as 1 second on the B clock, >No B will measure A to have different velocity than .866 c and thus he >predicts that B's clock second is repensented by (1/gamma_ba second) >on the A clock. Well, I guess that would mean that if B saw A as having a conversion factor of 1/gamma_ba, then A would have to see B as having a conversion factor of gamma_ba, so that gamma_ab = 1/gamma_ba. That's the only way for there to be a consistent conversion from absolute time to observed time in both frames. Now tell me, what velocity would correspond to a gamma less than 1? Or, tell me, if B sees A as moving at 0.866 c, what velocity does A see B have?
From: Inertial on 29 Mar 2010 07:57
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:8ccda5b2-fe01-49c7-a290-30d6941e85ba(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 24, 12:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Mar 23, 12:57 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> >> Yes, just like the train horn. The approaching train has to sound at >> >> a >> >> frequency lower than 440 Hz to be heard at the station as 440 Hz, >> >> while a >> >> departing train has to sound at a higher frequency to be heard as 440 >> >> Hz. >> >No it's not the same. The GPS sends a signal after N+4.15 perods of Cs >> >133 radiation elapsed....no matter if it is approaching the ground >> >clock or receding away from the ground clock. >> >> There are additional Doppler effects on the GPS signal as the satellites >> approach or recede, but I'm not talking about that. Don't try to confuse >> matters by mixing the Doppler of the GPS signals and the Doppler train >> example. >> >> Consider the signal from a satellite as it passes directly overhead, so >> that it is neither approaching nor receding. Doppler effect is zero. >> However since the satellite is not as deep in the earth's gravity well, >> there are GR effects. In addition the satellite is moving at a decent >> clip so that there are SR (NOT Doppler!) effects. With the cesium clock >> "mis-set" so that the divisor is N+4.15 periods of Cs, the received >> signal on earth's surface is absolutely correct. (remember, no Doppler >> in this case). > > Sigh....the title of this thread is SR/GR uses abnsolute time to > synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock. Which is wrong .. they use relative time. The ticking rate of the GPS clock is adjusted by the appropriate factor so that it appears correct when measured from the ground (ie in gps receivers). That involves only the relative rates of the clocks on the ground and the satellite. |