SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 10:10 On 5/22/10 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > On May 21, 4:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/21/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Hey idiot we are talking about the SR effect on the GPS. >> >> Now that IS A PROBLEM isn't it, Seto, as SR is not a sufficient >> tool to account for the relativistic corrections necessary to make >> GPS work properly. If you want to talk GPS, then we must talk GTR. > > Hey idiot the GTR equation for time dilation contains two parts: One > based on gravitational potential AND the SR effect is based on > velocity. The SR effect is calculated using SR equation. > > Ken Seto > >> Why do you fail to understand this point, Ken? >> >>>> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html >> Ken, the time dilation observed is satellite clocks is predicted by general relativity, whereas the time dilation in satellite clocks is not accounted for by special relativity. What part of that do you not get?
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 13:02 On 5/22/10 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > No you learn what SR says. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock > seconds at different rates and that's confirmed experimentally. That depends on the observer.
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 13:03 On 5/22/10 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot....SR says that an observed clock runs slow....that means > that it accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the > observer's clock.. Whether a clock runs slow or not is strictly observer dependent.
From: kenseto on 23 May 2010 09:07 On May 22, 1:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/22/10 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Hey idiot....SR says that an observed clock runs slow....that means > > that it accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the > > observer's clock.. > > Whether a clock runs slow or not is strictly observer dependent. Hey idiot....the PoR of SR allows every SR observer to assume that an observed clock runs slow compared to the observer's clock.
From: kenseto on 23 May 2010 09:09
On May 22, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/22/10 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > No you learn what SR says. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock > > seconds at different rates and that's confirmed experimentally. > > That depends on the observer. Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that an observed clock runs slow. |