SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 2 Apr 2010 00:27 "kenseto(a)erinet.com" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Mar 29, 7:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Mar 29, 5:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >No you are putting up bogus arguements. Everything will work as >> >before. Each observer will measure V with his clock but the V_a is not >> >the same as V_b because an A second is not equal to a B second. >> >> No, many things would "break". Another one is conservation of momentum. >> A stationary object breaks into two equal parts that fly away from >> each other. If each saw the other as a different velocity, then the >> total momentum of the system would depend on the reference frame. >No noithing would break. Every observer would assumes that his >measurements and calculations to obey the conservation of momentum. The "before" and "after" total momentum would differ, thus things would "break" if each saw the other at different velocities. >> >> Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time >> >> by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by >> >> dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101. >> >No...you already know that the amount of absolute time involved is >> >represented by 1 of A's clock second. That same amount of absolute >> >time is represented by 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock. >> >> What if I look at my watch and see 5 seconds have gone by, and I know >> gamma_ab? I want to know the absolute time. I simply reverse the >> algebra and divide by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra. >NO, NO....If you look at your watch and see 5 seconds then that 5 >seconds represents a specific interval of absolute time. If you want >to predict the clock reading at the B clock for this specific interval >of absolute time then you multiply 5(1/gamma_ab) If there is an "absolute time" that my 5 seconds represents, there is going to be some sort of conversion relationship to convert from this "absolute time" to my 5 seconds. And vice versa. >> >> No it doesn't. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any >> >> absolute rest frame whatsoever. That's why they used the word >> >> RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you're going >> >> to have to understand SR first. >> >If SR does not allow for any absolute rest frame then how come the SR >> >observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame? >> >> Ummmm, because he doesn't? >Becaus ehe does....he claimed that all the clocks moving wrt him are >running slow. This claim is based on the assumption that he is in a >state of rest. An observer in any frame sees clocks in another frame (moving with respect to the first frame) as running slow. Of course, someone in the second frame doesn't see their own clock as running slow. No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own frame. >> Once again, you will have to understand what SR claims before you can >> ever hope to modify or refute it. >So are you saying that every SR observer didn't claim that all the >clocks moving wrt him are running slow? Yet you keep bringing up "absolute frames" and "absolute time". Relativity doesn't have any of that, hence its name! Even Newton realized motion was relative. >> And again, I think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame >> and a reference frame. >When an SR observer claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are >running slow he is claiming that he is in a state of absolute rest. No he is not. He claims the clocks run slow _relative to his clock_. He claims nothing special about his own frame. Einstein did say the laws of physics apply equally to all inertial frames. >> >> >> > and that's why every SR observer >> >> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. >> >> >> No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually >> >> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute >> >> frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? >> >Yes he does...he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math....it >> >allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are >> >running slow. >> >> If he gets to _select_ the frame, it isn't an absolute frame! It's just >> a convenient frame to use. >Yes he cklaimed the absolute frame because he claimed its exclusive >properties. No, he simply selected the frame he is at rest in. Once again, you appear to be misapplying the term "absolute". An absolute frame is a frame that is special some how. All other frames have some property based against the absolute frame, velocity or whatever. The frame where the once-theorized aether wind was zero would be an absolute frame, as all velocity could be referenced to it by measuring the velocity of the aether wind. That's what the M-M experiment was attempting to measure. With my two rockets moving relative to each other with a delta velocity of 0.866 c, both could be given absolute velocities wrt the absolute frame -- if it existed. But no, there is no such frame. The velocities can only be given relative to each other. >> An example of an absolute frame of sorts is cars on roads... a road speed >> limit law implicitly references the surface of the earth as "0" speed. >> The earth's surface is the "absolute" frame for speed laws. >> If you try to fight a speeding ticket for doing 100 in a 60 zone, you'll >> get laughed out of court if you claim that you weren't speeding...you were >> going only 45 mph relative to someone else who was going 55. >I hav eno idea what you are talking about. A better example is: you >are going at .866c wrt the ground and you said that the ground clock >is running at 1/2 the rate of your clock. What this mean is that you >are claiming that the ground is moving at .866 c and you are in a >state of absolute rest. No, it means the ground is moving at 0.866 c _relative to you_. There's nothing absolute about it. Someone else on the ground is going to strongly disagree about the ground moving at 0.866 c. >> I still think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame >> and a reference frame. >No it is you who don't know the difference....that why you claimed >that every SR observer can claim that he is in a state of absolute >rest. Yf you are going to discuss relativity, you're going to have to speak the same language as others discussing relativity. It's like going to France and speaking Chinese and expecting everyone to know what you're talking about. Einstein himself said there were no absolute frames, everything is relative. >> How do _you_ define the absolute frame? How do _you_ define absolute >> time? >An observer in the absolute rest frame will see all the clocks >moving wrt him are riunning slow and all the rod moving wrt him are >contracted. Absolute time is present everywhere...there is no clock >unit that can measure the same interval of absolute time in different >frames. However every observer knows that his clock second represent a >specific interval of absolute time. OK, my hunch is correct. You don't know the difference between the observer's reference frame and an absolute frame. >> >> >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of >> >> >absolute rest and that's why he says that a clock moving wrt him can >> >> >run slow or fast compare to his clock. >> >> >> When has any such thing ever been observed? >> >From the ground clock point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is >> >7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock >> >point of view: the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running >> >fast compared to the GPS clock. >> >> WRONG! There are two timing effects on a GPS clock as seen on earth. SR >> (due to orbital motion) has the GPS clock running too slow as seen on >> earth by 7 us/day. GR (gravity effects) has the GPS clock running too >> fast by 45.9 us/day as seen on earth. The GR effect is larger, so the GPS >> clock appears to run too fast by about 38 uS/day. So, they set the >> oscillator of the satellite to run at 10.22999999543 MHz before launch, so >> it will be received as 10.23 MHz once in orbit. >> >> What the GPS would see of a ground clock: It would see it running slow due >> to SR (the ground appears to be moving rapidly relative to it) by 7 >> us/day, but the GR would also have it running slow by 45.9 us/day (the >> gravitational effects are reversed). This would have the ground clock >> running slow by about 53 uS/day. >No....you are using the redefined GPS second to make this >determination. No, I am not using any "redefined second". (How could I? There's no such thing!) I'm using the standard definition of a second, whatever vibrations of a Cesium atom, and it's easy to do since there's a Cs clock on the GPS satellite. I just have to make sure I don't use their divisor, else I will get the wrong value for 1 second. It has a clock rate that ticks every 1.0000000001 seconds or some such. > If you use the regular second to do the calculation you >will find that the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow. No, it will see it running slow by something like 53 uS a day. The GR (gravity) effects reverse, but the relative motion of the ground vs the satellite slow it by an additional 7 uS/day. This adds to the GR delay (it subtracts for the ground clock since the GR effects have a sign change, the satellite clock appears to run fast) If you ignore GR, the satellite sees the ground clock running 7 uS/day slow, the ground clock sees the satellite clock running 7 uS/day slow. Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and without using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?
From: kenseto on 4 Apr 2010 18:54 On Apr 2, 12:27 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 29, 7:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Mar 29, 5:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: > >> >No you are putting up bogus arguements. Everything will work as > >> >before. Each observer will measure V with his clock but the V_a is not > >> >the same as V_b because an A second is not equal to a B second. > > >> No, many things would "break". Another one is conservation of momentum. > >> A stationary object breaks into two equal parts that fly away from > >> each other. If each saw the other as a different velocity, then the > >> total momentum of the system would depend on the reference frame. > >No noithing would break. Every observer would assumes that his > >measurements and calculations to obey the conservation of momentum. > > The "before" and "after" total momentum would differ, thus things would > "break" if each saw the other at different velocities. No....not if the same observer do the measurement. > > >> >> Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time > >> >> by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by > >> >> dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101. > >> >No...you already know that the amount of absolute time involved is > >> >represented by 1 of A's clock second. That same amount of absolute > >> >time is represented by 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock. > > >> What if I look at my watch and see 5 seconds have gone by, and I know > >> gamma_ab? I want to know the absolute time. I simply reverse the > >> algebra and divide by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra. > >NO, NO....If you look at your watch and see 5 seconds then that 5 > >seconds represents a specific interval of absolute time. If you want > >to predict the clock reading at the B clock for this specific interval > >of absolute time then you multiply 5(1/gamma_ab) > > If there is an "absolute time" that my 5 seconds represents, there is > going to be some sort of conversion relationship to convert from this > "absolute time" to my 5 seconds. And vice versa. No such conversion factor converting your clock second to absolute time....your clock second represents a specific interval of absolute time.....that's all. > > >> >> No it doesn't. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any > >> >> absolute rest frame whatsoever. That's why they used the word > >> >> RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you're going > >> >> to have to understand SR first. > >> >If SR does not allow for any absolute rest frame then how come the SR > >> >observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame? > > >> Ummmm, because he doesn't? > >Becaus ehe does....he claimed that all the clocks moving wrt him are > >running slow. This claim is based on the assumption that he is in a > >state of rest. > > An observer in any frame sees clocks in another frame (moving with respect > to the first frame) as running slow. Of course, someone in the second > frame doesn't see their own clock as running slow. An SR observer doesn't see a clock moving wrt him is running slow. He predicts the every clock moving wrt him is running slow because he assumes that he is in a state of rest (absolute rest). Of course an SR observer does not predict his clock is running slow....such statement has no meaning. Why? Because he needs to compare to another clock to determine the rate of his clock. > > No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own > frame. Yes there is absolute frame in SR. The SR observer assumes that he is in an absolute frame and that's why he predicts all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. > > >> Once again, you will have to understand what SR claims before you can > >> ever hope to modify or refute it. > >So are you saying that every SR observer didn't claim that all the > >clocks moving wrt him are running slow? > > Yet you keep bringing up "absolute frames" and "absolute time". > Relativity doesn't have any of that, hence its name! Yes SR have both absolute frame...it is called inertial frame. Yes SR have absolute time it uses the concept of absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. > > Even Newton realized motion was relative. > > >> And again, I think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame > >> and a reference frame. > >When an SR observer claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are > >running slow he is claiming that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > No he is not. He claims the clocks run slow _relative to his clock_. Because he is claims that he is at rest in the absolute frame. > He claims nothing special about his own frame. Einstein did say the laws > of physics apply equally to all inertial frames. Yes he does claim special properties.....nmaely all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. BTW inertial frame is just another term for absolute frame. > > > > >> >> > and that's why every SR observer > >> >> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > >> >> No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually > >> >> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute > >> >> frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? > >> >Yes he does...he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math....it > >> >allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are > >> >running slow. > > >> If he gets to _select_ the frame, it isn't an absolute frame! It's just > >> a convenient frame to use. > >Yes he cklaimed the absolute frame because he claimed its exclusive > >properties. > > No, he simply selected the frame he is at rest in. But he is not at rest...he assumes that he is at rest and assumes the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > > Once again, you appear to be misapplying the term "absolute". An absolute > frame is a frame that is special some how. All other frames have some > property based against the absolute frame, velocity or whatever. The > frame where the once-theorized aether wind was zero would be an absolute > frame, as all velocity could be referenced to it by measuring the velocity > of the aether wind. That's what the M-M experiment was attempting to > measure. With my two rockets moving relative to each other with a delta > velocity of 0.866 c, both could be given absolute velocities wrt the > absolute frame -- if it existed. But no, there is no such frame. The > velocities can only be given relative to each other. > > >> An example of an absolute frame of sorts is cars on roads... a road speed > >> limit law implicitly references the surface of the earth as "0" speed. > >> The earth's surface is the "absolute" frame for speed laws. > >> If you try to fight a speeding ticket for doing 100 in a 60 zone, you'll > >> get laughed out of court if you claim that you weren't speeding...you were > >> going only 45 mph relative to someone else who was going 55. > >I hav eno idea what you are talking about. A better example is: you > >are going at .866c wrt the ground and you said that the ground clock > >is running at 1/2 the rate of your clock. What this mean is that you > >are claiming that the ground is moving at .866 c and you are in a > >state of absolute rest. > > No, it means the ground is moving at 0.866 c _relative to you_. There's > nothing absolute about it. Someone else on the ground is going to strongly > disagree about the ground moving at 0.866 c. > > >> I still think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame > >> and a reference frame. > >No it is you who don't know the difference....that why you claimed > >that every SR observer can claim that he is in a state of absolute > >rest. > > Yf you are going to discuss relativity, you're going to have to speak > the same language as others discussing relativity. It's like going to > France and speaking Chinese and expecting everyone to know what you're > talking about. > > Einstein himself said there were no absolute frames, everything is > relative. > > >> How do _you_ define the absolute frame? How do _you_ define absolute > >> time? > >An observer in the absolute rest frame will see all the clocks > >moving wrt him are riunning slow and all the rod moving wrt him are > >contracted. Absolute time is present everywhere...there is no clock > >unit that can measure the same interval of absolute time in different > >frames. However every observer knows that his clock second represent a > >specific interval of absolute time. > > OK, my hunch is correct. You don't know the difference between the > observer's reference frame and an absolute frame. > > > > > > >> >> >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of > >> >> >absolute rest and that's why he says that a clock moving wrt him can > >> >> >run slow or fast compare to his clock. > > >> >> When has any such thing ever been observed? > >> >From the ground clock point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is > >> >7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock > >> >point of view: the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running > >> >fast compared to the GPS clock. > > >> WRONG! There are two timing effects on a GPS clock as seen on earth.. SR > >> (due to orbital motion) has the GPS clock running too slow as seen on > >> earth by 7 us/day. GR (gravity effects) has the GPS clock running too > >> fast by 45.9 us/day as seen on earth. The GR effect is larger, so the GPS > >> clock appears to run too fast by about 38 uS/day. So, they set the > >> oscillator of the satellite to run at 10.22999999543 MHz before launch, so > >> it will be received as 10.23 MHz once in orbit. > > >> What the GPS would see of a ground clock: It would see it running slow due > >> to SR (the ground appears to be moving rapidly relative to it) by 7 > >> us/day, but the GR would also have it running slow by 45.9 us/day (the > >> gravitational effects are reversed). This would have the ground clock > >> running slow by about 53 uS/day. > >No....you are using the redefined GPS second to make this > >determination. > > No, I am not using any "redefined second". (How could I? There's no such > thing!) I'm using the standard definition of a second, whatever vibrations > of a Cesium atom, and it's easy to do since there's a Cs clock on the GPS > satellite. I just have to make sure I don't use their divisor, else I > will get the wrong value for 1 second. It has a clock rate that ticks > every 1.0000000001 seconds or some such. > > > If you use the regular second to do the calculation you > >will find that the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow. > > No, it will see it running slow by something like 53 uS a day. The > GR (gravity) effects reverse, but the relative motion of the ground > vs the satellite slow it by an additional 7 uS/day. This adds to the > GR delay (it subtracts for the ground clock since the GR effects have a > sign change, the satellite clock appears to run fast) > > If you ignore GR, the satellite sees the ground clock running 7 uS/day > slow, the ground clock sees the satellite clock running 7 uS/day slow. > > Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on > the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and without > using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 5 Apr 2010 16:02 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 2, 12:27 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own >> frame. >Yes there is absolute frame in SR. The SR observer assumes that he is >in an absolute frame and that's why he predicts all the clocks moving >wrt him are running slow. As i thought. You seem to be using the word "absolute" to mean what the word "reference" or "relative" means to physicists (when discussing relativity). To a physicist, "absolute" frames mean something completely different. Kind of like teaching a new driver to stop for "green" lights and "red" means go, but the teacher simply uses the word "green" to mean the color of ripe tomatoes and "red" means the color of grass... If you *ever* intend on having a reasoned discussion on such physics, you're going to have to learn to speak the same language as the rest of us. Trying to translate from Seto-ese into English gets too confusing. Also I notice you ignored this challenge: >> Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on >> the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and >> without using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?
From: BURT on 5 Apr 2010 18:06 On Apr 5, 1:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 2, 12:27 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own > >> frame. > >Yes there is absolute frame in SR. The SR observer assumes that he is > >in an absolute frame and that's why he predicts all the clocks moving > >wrt him are running slow. > > As i thought. You seem to be using the word "absolute" to mean what the > word "reference" or "relative" means to physicists (when discussing > relativity). To a physicist, "absolute" frames mean something completely > different. > > Kind of like teaching a new driver to stop for "green" lights and "red" > means go, but the teacher simply uses the word "green" to mean the color > of ripe tomatoes and "red" means the color of grass... > > If you *ever* intend on having a reasoned discussion on such physics, > you're going to have to learn to speak the same language as the rest of > us. Trying to translate from Seto-ese into English gets too confusing. > > Also I notice you ignored this challenge: > > > > >> Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on > >> the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and > >> without using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space is the absolute frame for motion. Motion is unified with it. Space does not contract but time slows. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2010 11:32
On Apr 5, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 2, 12:27 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own > >> frame. > >Yes there is absolute frame in SR. The SR observer assumes that he is > >in an absolute frame and that's why he predicts all the clocks moving > >wrt him are running slow. > > As i thought. You seem to be using the word "absolute" to mean what the > word "reference" or "relative" means to physicists (when discussing > relativity). To a physicist, "absolute" frames mean something completely > different. No I didn't use the word absolute to mean what the word relative mean. Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame and assumes the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the math. Similarly a LET observer assumed the existence of the absolute frame and assume the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the math. That's why SR and LET have the same math. Ken Seto > > Kind of like teaching a new driver to stop for "green" lights and "red" > means go, but the teacher simply uses the word "green" to mean the color > of ripe tomatoes and "red" means the color of grass... > > If you *ever* intend on having a reasoned discussion on such physics, > you're going to have to learn to speak the same language as the rest of > us. Trying to translate from Seto-ese into English gets too confusing. > > Also I notice you ignored this challenge: > > > > >> Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on > >> the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and > >> without using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |