SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 13:00 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. > > >...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. > > > > > > 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. 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 -
From: PD on 18 May 2010 13:14 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. > 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 - > >
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 14:42 On 5/18/10 7:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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 I knew you would ask, Seto. I call your attention to this paper, RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATIONS FOR TIME SYNCHRONIZATION AND DISSEMINATION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM which certainly includes relativistic effect from the perspective of the Mars observer and relativistic effects from the perspective of the Earth observer. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf > CONCLUSION > Transformations between clocks operating on the Earth and clocks at Mars or on the Moon will become > an essential activity for future space missions. The analysis of this paper has shown that the relativistic > effects at Mars are comprised of a secular rate difference of about 0.49 ms/d and periodic variations with > amplitudes of 1.7 ms and 11.4 ms relative to Earth-based clocks. The secular effect for the Moon is about > an order of magnitude less. Accurate time transfer in the solar system for communications and navigation > systems requires the consideration of these relativistic effects. There are many more confirmations, Seto, and I will trot them out one by one as necessary to convince you that many such experiments exist. We would not have successful precision two-way communications with our interplanetary probes without taking relativistic effects into consideration.
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 18:03 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. The difference in the rate of accumulation of clock second is predicted by SR or IRT. 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 > > > > > 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 -
From: PD on 18 May 2010 18:10
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. 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. > 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. > 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. > 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 - > > |