SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 20 May 2010 08:43 On May 19, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'sclockis 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 mutualtimedilation is wrong...A and B cannot predict > > each othwer'sclockruns 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 notimeA 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. Hey idiot these are the only possibilities mechanically. > > 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. Hey idiot What you said here are illusions. They are the results of the PoR that allows every SR observer to assume the exclusive properties of the absolute frame...they don't exist mechanically or materially. Ken Seto > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 20 May 2010 08:57 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'sclockis 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 accumulateclocksecond at a faster rate than B then B must > > > > > > > > accumulateclockseconds 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 > > > > > > accumulatedclockseconds. Also theGPSclocksupports my claims. > > > > > > > > I want you to see the difference between what YOU say and what SR > > > > > > > says. > > > > > > > What you say: "A accumulateclocksecond at a faster rate than B then > > > > > > > B must accumulateclockseconds at a slower rate than A." > > > > > > > What SR says: "A accumulatesclockseconds at a faster rate than B in > > > > > > > A's rest frame. B accumulatesclockseconds at a faster rate than A in > > > > > > > B's rest frame." > > > > > > > What SR said is wrong,,,,,The rate of accmulatingclockseconds is not > > > > > > frame dependent. > > > > > > Your assertion is not an argument. > > > > > Experimental evidence proves your assertion wrong. > > > > > No your assertion is wrong. Eachclockaccumulateclockseconds 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 aclockaccumulates seconds being > not frame dependent is an assertion. What you said about eachclock > accumulatingclockseconds at its own constant and frame-independent > rate is an assertion. Assertion is not an argument. Experimental > evidence proves your assertions incorrect. Hey idiot....every clock accumulates clock second at its own constant rate and that rate is not observer dependent. An observer compare his clock's constant rate with with the constant rate of a clock moving wrt him gives a difference in the two constant rates. This does not mean that the rate of an observed clock is frame dependent. > > > > > > > TheGPSclockaccumulatesclock > > second at a different rate than the grooundclock. > > > > 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 theGPS. > > TheGPSclockaccumulates (86400sec+38us)/day while thegroundclock > > accumulates 86400 sec/day > > > > > The difference in the rate of accumulation ofclock > > > > second is predicted by SR or IRT. > > > > Mutualtimedilation is not predicted by SR to apply toGPS. > > > Sure the SR effect of 7 us/day running slow is incorporated into the > > offset in theGPSclockbefore the launch. > > No, Ken, it is not. The full GENERAL relativistic offset is > incorporated into it. Yes it is the gravitational potential effect is 45 us/day fast and the SR effect is 7 us/day slow. The total effect which you call the GR effect is 38 us/day fast. > Furthermore, a one-way, asymmetrictimeoffset is not the same as > MUTUALtimedilation. > MUTUALtimedilation does not apply to theGPScase, and SR does not > claim it should. I agree to that....but mutual time dilation is not valid in any situation. > > > > > > > TheGPSsupports my claim: > > > > No, it does not. You are misapplying SR to theGPSsatellites to try > > > to imply that mutualtimedilation is predicted forGPSby relativity. > > > That is incorrect. The mistake is yours. > > > No I didn't misapply SR to theGPSand theGPSdoes not include mutual > >timedilation but the SR effect on theGPSclockof 7 us/day running > > slow is included in the offset on theGPSclockbefore launch. > > MUTUALtimedilation is supported by experimental evidence. No such experiment exist. >This > evidence is found elsewhere other thanGPS.GPSis not a place where > SR says that mutualtimedilation would apply. How does the GPS clock know when to apply mutual time dilation and when not to apply? Ken Seto > Your insistence thatGPSproves that mutualtimedilation doesn't > occur is simply applying that relativistic claim where relativity says > you should not apply that. > > > > > > > > > 1. From thegroundclockpoint of view theGPSclockis 38 us/day > > > > fast. > > > > 2. From theGPSpoint of view thegroundclockis ~38 us/day slow. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Eachclockwill accumulateclocksecond 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 theabsoluteframe > > > > > > and thus asserts that all clocks moving wrt him are accumulatingclock > > > > > > second at a slower rate. This PoR assumption is correct for observed > > > > > > clocks that are in a higher stATE OFABSOLUTEMOTION THAN THE > > > > > > OBSERVER. But if the observed clocks are in a lower states ofabsolute > > > > > > motion than the observer then the observeved clocks will accumulate > > > > > >clockseconds 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 -
From: Sam Wormley on 20 May 2010 11:11 On 5/20/10 7:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > How does a clock know when to use mutual time dilation and when not to > use mutual time dilation. You are so stu[pid. > > Ken Seto Ken, I hope you don't think your "How does a clock know..." question has relevance. Makes you sound like Retic. When you introduce GPS into the conversation, the relativistic effect for satellite must take into account gravitation. The proper treatment of relativistic effect on satellite clock is discussed in this work by Neil Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System" http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html Ken, it is obvious from your posting record (available for all the world to see) that you don't have the foggiest understanding of relativity theory or its applications.
From: PD on 20 May 2010 13:28 On May 20, 7:18 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 19, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 9:57 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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'sclockis 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 accumulateclocksecond at a faster rate than B then B must > > > > > > > > > > > accumulateclockseconds 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 > > > > > > > > > accumulatedclockseconds. Also theGPSclocksupports my claims. > > > > > > > > > > > I want you to see the difference between what YOU say and what SR > > > > > > > > > > says. > > > > > > > > > > What you say: "A accumulateclocksecond at a faster rate than B then > > > > > > > > > > B must accumulateclockseconds at a slower rate than A." > > > > > > > > > > What SR says: "A accumulatesclockseconds at a faster rate than B in > > > > > > > > > > A's rest frame. B accumulatesclockseconds at a faster rate than A in > > > > > > > > > > B's rest frame." > > > > > > > > > > What SR said is wrong,,,,,The rate of accmulatingclockseconds is not > > > > > > > > > frame dependent. > > > > > > > > > Your assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > > > Experimental evidence proves your assertion wrong. > > > > > > > > No your assertion is wrong. Eachclockaccumulateclockseconds 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 aclockaccumulates seconds being > > > > not frame dependent is an assertion. > > > > Hey idiot it is not an assertion....that's why a travelingclock > > > accumulate lessclockseconds than a stay at homeclockwhen they are > > > reunited. > > > That too is your assertion. > > It certainly isn't what SR says. > > So what? What SR says is wrong. That is your assertion. Experimental evidence is in SR's favor and not in yours. > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > What I said is not an assertion. Clocks moving wrt each other are > accumulate clock seconds at different rates and this rate difference > is due to that each clock runs at its own constant rate. That is your assertion, Ken. Experimental evidence is in SR's favor and not in yours. > > > Experimental evidence is counter to your assertions, disproving them. > > Experimental evidence supports SR. > > Wrong experiments show that I am right. No, Ken, they don't. You haven't looked up a single paper documenting any of the experiments. Not a single one. You are making up statements without any knowledge. That is scientific fraud. Fraud. Do you hear me, Ken? Fraud. You are conducting scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > The difference in accumulatedclockseconds is due to that > > > observer'sclockrun at one constant rate and the observedclockruns > > > at its own diferent constant rate. . > > > > >What you said about eachclock > > > > accumulatingclockseconds 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 accumlatedclockseconds. What this mean is that aclock > > > second does not contain the same amount of "TIME" or DURATION in > > > different frames. > > > > > > TheGPSclockaccumulatesclock > > > > > second at a different rate than the grooundclock. > > > > > > > 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 theGPS. > > > > > TheGPSclockaccumulates (86400sec+38us)/day while thegroundclock > > > > > accumulates 86400 sec/day > > > > > > > > The difference in the rate of accumulation ofclock > > > > > > > second is predicted by SR or IRT. > > > > > > > Mutualtimedilation is not predicted by SR to apply toGPS. > > > > > > Sure the SR effect of 7 us/day running slow is incorporated into the > > > > > offset in theGPSclockbefore 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. > > > There is no "the SR equation", Ken. Your grip on SR is so shallow it > > is laughable. > > SR makes *many* different predictions and uses *many* different > > calculations as applied in different situations. > > Sure there SR equation. The SR effect on the GPS is calculated using > the SR equation. > > > > > > > Furthermore, a one-way, asymmetrictimeoffset is not the same as > > > > MUTUALtimedilation. > > > > MUTUALtimedilation does not apply to theGPScase, and SR does not > > > > claim it should. > > > > According to your SR runt brother Moroney it does apply. > > > Read what I said. Michael has agreed with me. MUTUALtimedilation is > > not applicable inGPS. > > You are wrong....he said that from the ground clock point of view the > SR effect is 7 us/day slow and from the gGPS point of view the ground > clock is ~7us/day slow. > > > > > > > > The SR effect does apply to theGPS....only it is not in the form of > > > mutualtimedilation. > > > > > > > > TheGPSsupports my claim: > > > > > > > No, it does not. You are misapplying SR to theGPSsatellites to try > > > > > > to imply that mutualtimedilation is predicted forGPSby relativity. > > > > > > That is incorrect. The mistake is yours. > > > > > > No I didn't misapply SR to theGPSand theGPSdoes not include mutual > > > > >timedilation but the SR effect on theGPSclockof 7 us/day running > > > > > slow is included in the offset on theGPSclockbefore launch. > > > > > MUTUALtimedilation is supported by experimental evidence. > > > > No it doesn't. > > > Yes, it is, and I've given you some samples of this. > > You responded, "But theGPS...," citing an example that has nothing to > > do with MUTUALtimedilation. > > The SR effect has everything to do with the GPS. The GPS system has NOTHING to do with MUTUAL time dilation. There are MANY "SR effects". Mutual time dilation is one of MANY SR effects, but it does not apply in the case of GPS. > > > > > >...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 theabsoluteframe to do calculations. > > > > >This > > > > evidence is found elsewhere other thanGPS.GPSis not a place where > > > > SR says that mutualtimedilation would apply. > > > > The SR effect on theGPSis calculated using the SR equations. I agree > > > that mutualtimedialtion does not apply to theGPSor any situation. > > > Mutualtimedilation does apply to certain situations, just not theGPSone.. Nor does SR say it should apply. > > How does a clock know when to use mutual time dilation and when not to > use mutual time dilation. You are so stu[pid. Oh, good heavens, Ken. How does a brick know when Newton's first law applies, and when Newton's 2nd law applies instead? Things don't have to look up which laws they should behave by. They just behave by the laws that DO apply in that case. It's up to YOU to know when a law applies and when it does not. Mutual time dilation does not apply to the GPS. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > From thegroundcloc point of view the Sr effect on theGPSclockis 7 > > > us/da slow and from theGPSpoint of view the SR effectr on theground > > >clockis ~7us/day fast. > > > > > Your insistence thatGPSproves that mutualtimedilation doesn't > > > > occur is simply applying that relativistic claim where relativity says > > > > you should not apply that. > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > 1. From thegroundclockpoint of view theGPSclockis 38 us/day > > > > > > > fast. > > > > > > > 2. From theGPSpoint of view thegroundclockis ~38 us/day slow. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > Eachclockwill accumulateclocksecond 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 theabsoluteframe > > > > > > > > > and thus asserts that all clocks moving wrt him are accumulatingclock > > > > > > > > > second at a slower rate. This PoR assumption is correct for observed > > > > > > > > > clocks that are in a higher stATE OFABSOLUTEMOTION THAN THE > > > > > > > > > OBSERVER. But if the observed clocks are in a lower states ofabsolute > > > > > > > > > motion than the observer then the observeved clocks will accumulate > > > > > > > > >clockseconds at a faster rate than these observed clocks. > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand the critical difference between these two > > > > > > > > > > statements? > > ... > > read more »
From: PD on 20 May 2010 13:30
On May 20, 7:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 19, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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'sclockis 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 mutualtimedilation is wrong...A and B cannot predict > > > each othwer'sclockruns 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 notimeA 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. > > Hey idiot these are the only possibilities mechanically. No, Ken, those are NOT the only two possibilities. Those are the only two YOU can imagine, but that's because you have a very limited grasp on mechanics. > > > > > 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. > > Hey idiot What you said here are illusions. No, they are real, and they are confirmed in experiment. Not in the GPS, because mutual time dilation doesn't apply there, but in other cases where it DOES apply. > They are the results of > the PoR that allows every SR observer to assume the exclusive > properties of the absolute frame...they don't exist mechanically or > materially. > > Ken Seto > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |