SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 17 May 2010 13:05 On May 17, 11:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/17/10 8:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On May 16, 10:56 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > > >>   You know, Seto, we've been over this many times over the years and > >>   you still can seem to understand the fact relativity is relative. > >>   How could your parent raise you to be this way? Please look at the > >>   following carefully. > > >>   Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they > >>   tick at the same rate when together. Now let us suppose that > >>   A and B have relative motion, such that their velocity (closing or > >>   opening) with respect to each other is, v>  0, and that dv/dt = 0 . > > >>   Correcting for any Doppler shift, A measures B's time interval as > >>    ât_B' = γ ât_B > > >>   and B measures A's time interval as > >>    ât_A' = γ ât_A > > >>   where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity > >>   between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > > >>   Therefore, A measures B's time interval to be longer than her own. > >>   And B measures A's time interval to be longer than his own. Who's > >>   clock measures slow is observer dependent. Seto do you know what > >>   observer dependent means? > > > Wormy you are an idiot. All you do is copy and paste. > >   Ken, I think the crux of your non-acceptance of relativity, is that >   you are bothered by the fact that who's clock measures slow is >   observer dependent. No....I don't accept the SR assertion that every SR observer predicts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. Also I don't accept that A sees B runs slow and B sees A runs slow. These bogus SR assertion is based on the assumption that the SR observer is in a state of absolute rest. In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest and therefore his clock can run slow or fast compared to a clock moving wrt him. Once it is deftermined that the observer's clock is truly running faster than the observed clock then from the observed clock point of view the observed clock is running faster than its clock. ken Seto > >   Sam and Ken have identical clocks. Ken and Sam have constant linear >   motion with respect to each other. Ken says, "Sam, your clock is >   running slower than mine, for that is what I measure". Sam says, "I >   don't doubt that Ken. Furthermore, I measure your clock running slower >   than mine". > >   Ken and Sam each measure the other's clock to be running slower than >   his own--and that's the way reality is. No problem. No contradiction. >   Who measures what is observer dependent. It's all relative. Special >   relativity in in total agreement with these observations. In the 105 >   years since Einstein relativity paper in 1905, after hundreds of >   thousands of observation, measurements and experiments, there has >   never been an observation that contradicts a prediction of special >   relativity. > >   The equations above allow you to make the calculations of time >   dilation as a function of velocity. > >   It's trivial to plug in a velocity and predict to the time interval >   of somebody else's clock interval is longer than your own, when >   relative motion is involved. > >   Hey, I'm not teaching this summer, if you would like me to tutor >   you in special relativity. There are a number of good textbooks we >   could use. > >   Physics FAQ: Introductory Textbooks on STR > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 17 May 2010 13:49 On May 17, 11:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 17, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 5:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > > > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > > > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > > > > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. > > > > Here's why you don't understand what closing velocity means: According > > > to Einstein in his train gedanken he said that M' is at equal distance > > > from the ends of the train and he is moving (closing velocities)wrt > > > the light fronts from the ends of the train that means that the speed > > > of light in the M' frame cannot be isotropic in the M' frame. That > > > means that the bogus conept of RoS is refuted by the SR postulate. > > > No it does NOT mean that. Closing speed is not isotropic, as Einstein > > said. Light speed is isotropic, as Einstein said. > > No idiot....if M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the > train that he is riding then he cannot measure the speed of light to > be isotropic. Oh, but he can. The two are completely different things. > > > > > You have confused the two, thinking they are the same thing. They are > > not. > > I did not confuse the two...I merely point out that if M' moves wrt > the light fronts from the ends of the train the speed of light in the > train is not iostropic. No, Ken, that's not right. If M' moves wrt the light front from the ends of the train, this means the *closing* speed is not isotropic. But the light speed is still isotropic. As I said, you are confused about which is closing speed and which is light speed. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you > > > > are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then > > > > you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, > > > > and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are > > > > the one that does not know what "closing speed" means. > > > > > Someday, you're just going to have to accept the fact that there are > > > > things you do not understand, and there are some things you are wrong > > > > about. When you can do this without feeling like your ego has been > > > > shredded, then you have a chance at making a positive contribution. > > > > > > Observed relative > > > > > velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) > > > > > has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from > > > > > the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > > > > > > the motions of the sources. > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different things. > > > > > > > > You are so stupid. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > RoS is bogus because it asserts that M > > > > > > > > > detects different closing speeds from different directions. > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if the gedanken set up is changed as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > M' sees the light fronts from the ends of the train arrive at him > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and he is at equal distance from the ends of the train. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore he concluded that the flashes happened simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > > > > > > Does M see the flashes arrive at him simultaneously? According to RoS > > > > > > > > > > > > the answer is no. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But according to the SR postulaTE THE ANSWER IS YES.. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the SR postulate would not say that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good Jiminy Jumping Jacks, you are hopeless. I've never seen anyone so > > > > > > > > > > > thick in my > > ... > > read more »
From: Sam Wormley on 17 May 2010 15:25 On 5/17/10 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > No....I don't accept the SR assertion that every SR observer predicts > that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. I know you don't accept that, Ken. That's part of the problem. Experiments confirm that SR predictions are valid.
From: Michael Moroney on 17 May 2010 17:34 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On May 14, 3:17 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> delta(t') is the *same* event as observed by another observer (B) moving >> >> at relative velocity v, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). >> >No....A predicts that his 1 second is worth 1/gamma second on the B >> >clock. From B's point of view he predicts that 1 of his clock second >> >is worth gamma second on the A clock. >> >> A predicts she'll see B's clock tick at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), >Yes.....one of t' second is worth gamma second on the t clock. That >means that the t' clock is slow compared to the t clock. Yup. Reverse A and B and the same thing happens, too. B predicts (and observes) A's clock running slow compared to his clock. A predicts (and observes) B's clock running slow compared to her clock. >> where delta(t) is a time interval local to B (B's watch's second hand) >> computes gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and observes that she'll see B's clock >> as slow as well. >What are you saying here? are you saying that the t' clock predicts >that the t clock is slow?? If you actually understood SR you'd know exactly what was being predicted. For an expert who claims to know more about SR than anyone here, you sure know squat about SR. I think you need to take Sam Wormley up on his suggestion. Get some tutoring on SR, even if from someone other than him. And technically, you cannot simply reverse t and t'. Reverse the actors, and t is B's clock local to B, and t' is B's clock as seen by A. Also, Sam Wormley writes: : Ken, I think the crux of your non-acceptance of relativity, is that : you are bothered by the fact that who's clock measures slow is : observer dependent. I think that's true. Maybe you should consider another common effect which does not involve relativity, where effects are observer dependent and do not reverse, yet we humans don't have any problem. Consider two people A and B, who are the same height. When they are face to face, each sees the other as full-sized, as tall as they are. Now if they walk a few hundered feet from each other, each one sees the other as small, and if they get further away, they get even smaller in appearance. Notice that just because A looks tiny as far as B is concerned, B does *not* appear huge as far as A is concerned. In fact, B looks tiny to A, and by the same amount that A looks tiny to B. Note that neither A nor B actually shrink. If each measures their height with a (local) ruler, they'll find their height is unchanged. Also note it does not matter whether A or B moved, or both did. There is no "absolute center" of the world where everyone is full-sized and appearing small is a function of how far away you are from this "absolute center". No, it is a local effect, depending only on how far A and B are from each other. SR time dilation is very similar. The differences are that it's the relative velocity and not the relative distance that matters, and the effect is that clocks are seen as running slower rather than the person appearing as if they are smaller. > if that's what you are saying then it is >wrong. The t' clock must predict that the t clock is running faster >than the t' clock. >>"Isn't that interesting. Even though B sees my clock >> as running slow, I see B's clock as running slow." >no....not intersting at all....You made a bogus assertion that B(t') >predicts that A(t) is runing slow. Nope. It's what SR predicts, and is quite interesting since it goes against common sense. >> This is contradictory. If gamma is always greater than or equal to 1, >> and, according to SR, all moving observers observe A's clock as moving at >> the rate of gamma*their clock rate, then all moving observers *must* see >> A's clock as running slow. >No....no observer knows whether his clock is running slow or fast >compared to a moving clock. All he can say is that a moving clock can >run fast by a factor of gamma or runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma. On contrary. Gamma can be calculated if the relative velocity is known, and is known to be >= 1 no matter what, so it is known that for any nonzero velocity, any moving clock will be seen as running slow. >> Your bit about "running slow by a factor of 1/gamma" is your own creation, >> and not part of SR, but something that exists only in your own mind. >> For someone who claims to know more about SR than anyone else here, >> you sure don't understand SR. >SR is wrong and incomplete.... Well then your pet theory cannot be an extension of SR if you claim SR is wrong. Any theory that is an extension of another theory implicitly assumes the other theory is correct under the stated conditions. Just like SR and GR, GR is simply SR when away from gravitating masses. >the reason is that every SR observer >assumes that he is in a state of rest and a clock moving wrt him are >doing the moving....this led him to conclude that all clocks moving >wrt him are rinning slow.
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 08:40
On May 17, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/17/10 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > No....I don't accept the SR assertion that every SR observer predicts > > that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. > > I know you don't accept that, Ken. That's part of the problem. > Experiments confirm that SR predictions are valid. Wormy....no such experiment exists. What we have is that there is experiment that confirms A's prediction that B's clock is running slow but there is no experiment that confirm B's prediction that A's clock is running slow. Ken Seto |