SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 19 May 2010 09:46 On May 18, 10:17 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. Not wrong....you are an idiot.
From: kenseto on 19 May 2010 09:49 On May 18, 10:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Hey idiot what I said is what GR predicts. Ken Seto > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.....
From: PD on 19 May 2010 10:01 On May 19, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. What you said about the rate that a clock accumulates seconds being not frame dependent is an assertion. What you said about each clock accumulating clock seconds at its own constant and frame-independent rate is an assertion. Assertion is not an argument. Experimental evidence proves your assertions incorrect. > 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. No, Ken, it is not. The full GENERAL relativistic offset is incorporated into it. Furthermore, a one-way, asymmetric time offset is not the same as MUTUAL time dilation. MUTUAL time dilation does not apply to the GPS case, and SR does not claim it should. > > > > > > 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. MUTUAL time dilation is supported by experimental evidence. This evidence is found elsewhere other than GPS. GPS is not a place where SR says that mutual time dilation would apply. Your insistence that GPS proves that mutual time dilation doesn't occur is simply applying that relativistic claim where relativity says you should not apply that. > > > > > > 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: PD on 19 May 2010 10:03 On May 19, 8:45 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. That's wrong, Ken. Your two possibilities are not the only two possibilities, even though your limited imagination says they are. Relativity says, "A runs fast compared to B in A's rest frame, and B runs fast compared to A in B's rest frame." Do you see the difference between that and "A runs fast compared to B and B runs fast compared to A"? If you don't, then you do not understand relativity at all. PD
From: kenseto on 19 May 2010 10:57
On May 19, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > What you said about the rate that a clock accumulates seconds being > not frame dependent is an assertion. Hey idiot it is not an assertion....that's why a traveling clock accumulate less clock seconds than a stay at home clock when they are reunited. The difference in accumulated clock seconds is due to that observer's clock run at one constant rate and the observed clock runs at its own diferent constant rate. . >What you said about each clock > accumulating clock seconds at its own constant and frame-independent > rate is an assertion. Assertion is not an argument. Experimental > evidence proves your assertions incorrect. Hey idiot when you compare the two different constant rates you get the different accumlated clock seconds. What this mean is that a clock second does not contain the same amount of "TIME" or DURATION in different frames. > > > > > > > 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. > > No, Ken, it is not. The full GENERAL relativistic offset is > incorporated into it. Hey idiot the SR effect is part of the full general relativistic effect and the SR effect uses the SR equation. > Furthermore, a one-way, asymmetric time offset is not the same as > MUTUAL time dilation. > MUTUAL time dilation does not apply to the GPS case, and SR does not > claim it should. According to your SR runt brother Moroney it does apply. The SR effect does apply to the GPS....only it is not in the form of mutual time dilation. > > > > > > > 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. > > MUTUAL time dilation is supported by experimental evidence. No it doesn't....this is an assertion of the PoR and the PoR is wrong. The reason why the PoR is wrong is that it allows every SR observer to choose the absolute frame to do calculations. >This > evidence is found elsewhere other than GPS. GPS is not a place where > SR says that mutual time dilation would apply. The SR effect on the GPS is calculated using the SR equations. I agree that mutual time dialtion does not apply to the GPS or any situation. From the ground cloc point of view the Sr effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/da slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effectr on the ground clock is ~7us/day fast. > Your insistence that GPS proves that mutual time dilation doesn't > occur is simply applying that relativistic claim where relativity says > you should not apply that. Idiot. > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |