SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 18 May 2010 22:15 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On May 18, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 18, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > No....if B is truly running slower than A then A must truly running >> > faster than B. So from B's point of view A's clock is running fast. >> >> Ken, Ken, Ken. You insist that the world lives by rules that make >> sense to you, rather than trying to make sense of the rules that the >> world lives by. >Hey idiot....it is not my rule.... Yes it is. Relativity makes no such assumption. >when you compare two clocks the >following possibilities exist: >A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must >accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. Only if there is some universal constant connected to the time flow rate, Such a thing is only in your mind. >> You do not have the choice to say, "The world MUST BE THIS WAY for it >> to be acceptable to me." >You do not have the choice of making contradictory statements. Neither do you, so why do you do so? Things like "If A sees B's clock as slow B must see A's as fast" when such a thing can happen only if gamma < 1, and the formula for gamma from velocity can only produce a gamma >= 1.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 May 2010 22:17 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >The GPS supports my claim: >1. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is 38 us/day >fast. >2. From the GPS point of view the ground clock is ~38 us/day slow. Wrong.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 22:28 On 5/18/10 5:03 PM, kenseto wrote: > The GPS supports my claim: > 1. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is 38 us/day > fast. > 2. From the GPS point of view the ground clock is ~38 us/day slow. > > Ken Seto You must be off your rocker, Ken. Genera relativity is required. See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: kenseto on 19 May 2010 09:23 On May 18, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 5:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 18, 1:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 18, 12:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 18, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 18, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 18, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 18, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No....if B is truly running slower than A then A must truly running > > > > > > > > faster than B. So from B's point of view A's clock is running fast. > > > > > > > > Ken, Ken, Ken. You insist that the world lives by rules that make > > > > > > > sense to you, rather than trying to make sense of the rules that the > > > > > > > world lives by. > > > > > > > Hey idiot....it is not my rule. > > > > > > It must be, Ken, because it is not the rule that the world lives by. > > > > > What I said is what the rules that the world lives by. > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but experimental evidence completely disproves your > > > claim. > > > Your assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > >...when you compare two clocks the > > > > > > following possibilities exist: > > > > > > A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must > > > > > > accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > > > > > Sorry, but that's what makes sense to YOU. That is not the rule that > > > > > nature lives by. > > > > > What I said is exactly what the world lives by. > > > > Again, your assertion is not an argument. > > > Experimental verification proves your statement wrong. > > > > > > > > You do not have the choice to say, "The world MUST BE THIS WAY for it > > > > > > > to be acceptable to me." > > > > > > > You do not have the choice of making contradictory statements. > > > > > > They are not contradictory. They only SEEM contradictory to you, > > > > > because you mix in assumptions YOU make and because you do not > > > > > understand the meaning of certain terms. > > > > > Yes they are contradictory. All clocks return will show less > > > > accumulated clock seconds. Also the GPS clock supports my claims. > > > > > > I want you to see the difference between what YOU say and what SR > > > > > says. > > > > > What you say: "A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then > > > > > B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A." > > > > > What SR says: "A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B in > > > > > A's rest frame. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A in > > > > > B's rest frame." > > > > > What SR said is wrong,,,,,The rate of accmulating clock seconds is not > > > > frame dependent. > > > > Your assertion is not an argument. > > > Experimental evidence proves your assertion wrong. > > > No your assertion is wrong. Each clock accumulate clock seconds at its > > own constant rate. > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. What I said is not an assertion. The GPS clock accumulates clock second at a different rate than the groound clock. > You assert the assertions of relativity are wrong. Your assertions are > unsupported. The assertions of relativity are supported by experiment > evidence. In science, in that comparison, you lose. Period. End of > story. My assertion is supported by the GPS. The GPS clock accumulates (86400sec+38us)/day while the ground clock accumulates 86400 sec/day > > > The difference in the rate of accumulation of clock > > second is predicted by SR or IRT. > > Mutual time dilation is not predicted by SR to apply to GPS. Sure the SR effect of 7 us/day running slow is incorporated into the offset in the GPS clock before the launch. > > > The GPS supports my claim: > > No, it does not. You are misapplying SR to the GPS satellites to try > to imply that mutual time dilation is predicted for GPS by relativity. > That is incorrect. The mistake is yours. No I didn't misapply SR to the GPS and the GPS does not include mutual time dilation but the SR effect on the GPS clock of 7 us/day running slow is included in the offset on the GPS clock before launch. > > > > > 1. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is 38 us/day > > fast. > > 2. From the GPS point of view the ground clock is ~38 us/day slow. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Each clock will accumulate clock second according to > > > > its own rate and no observer can change that rate. The problem with SR > > > > is that every SR observer assumes the properties of the absolute frame > > > > and thus asserts that all clocks moving wrt him are accumulating clock > > > > second at a slower rate. This PoR assumption is correct for observed > > > > clocks that are in a higher stATE OF ABSOLUTE MOTION THAN THE > > > > OBSERVER. But if the observed clocks are in a lower states of absolute > > > > motion than the observer then the observeved clocks will accumulate > > > > clock seconds at a faster rate than these observed clocks. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Do you understand the critical difference between these two > > > > > statements? > > > > > There is no contradiction anywhere. > > > > > If you do not understand the difference, then you do not understand SR > > > > > or the meaning of the terms used in its statements. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > You are no scientist. I scientist does not do what you do. > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 19 May 2010 09:45
On May 18, 10:15 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On May 18, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 18, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> > No....if B is truly running slower than A then A must truly running > >> > faster than B. So from B's point of view A's clock is running fast. > > >> Ken, Ken, Ken. You insist that the world lives by rules that make > >> sense to you, rather than trying to make sense of the rules that the > >> world lives by. > >Hey idiot....it is not my rule.... > > Yes it is. Relativity makes no such assumption. Relativity and mutual time dilation is wrong...A and B cannot predict each othwer's clock runs slow. The following possibilities exists when comparing two clocks: 1. A runs fast compared to B then B runs slow compared to A. 2. A runs slow compared to B then B runs fast compared to A. At no time A runs fast compared to B and B runs fast compared to A. > > >when you compare two clocks the > >following possibilities exist: > >A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must > >accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > Only if there is some universal constant connected to the time flow rate, > Such a thing is only in your mind. So are you now saying that a second is not a universal interval of time? In that case why do you guys compare a traveling clock second with a stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion thhat the traveling clock is younger???? > > >> You do not have the choice to say, "The world MUST BE THIS WAY for it > >> to be acceptable to me." > >You do not have the choice of making contradictory statements. > > Neither do you, so why do you do so? Things like "If A sees B's clock > as slow B must see A's as fast" when such a thing can happen only if > gamma < 1, and the formula for gamma from velocity can only produce > a gamma >= 1. No idiot....if the observed clock is running faster then the observer uses the equation that t'_B=gamma*t_A here is no need to have v>c. Ken Seto |