SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 21 May 2010 13:32 On May 21, 12:13 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 20, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > So are you saying that a traveling clock does not accumulate clock > seconds at a slower rate than the stay at home clock? You are a fool. > Ken, learn what SR says and stop trying to put your words into its mouth. SR involves things you will never think of on your own. > > > > > > 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. > > I don't have to look at any paper....experiments show that all clocks > originated from the observer's frame runs slow. Ken, you do not know what experiments show and do not show until you look at the papers. If you make an assertion about what experiments show and you haven't even looked the papers, then you are just bullshitting. Everyone knows you're bullshitting. > > > > > Fraud. Do you hear me, Ken? Fraud. You are conducting scientific > > fraud. > > ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. No, Ken. I've read the papers and even have done some of the experiments myself. You have not. You are the fraud, not me. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > I see that you don't have an answer for this fact. It confirms my > suspicion that you talk from your arsehole. > Ken, what I *choose* to answer is of my own picking. I don't care what taunts, dares, and whinings it elicits out of you. If you want to learn about GPS, stop talking about it here and arguing about what people are saying about it here, and go READ ABOUT IT. If you want to learn about SR, stop talking about it here and arguing about what people are saying about it here, and go READ ABOUT IT. > > > > > > > > > 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.. > > I agree with that....Mutual time dilation doesn't exist in any > situation.. I've already told you about experimental cases where it does apply. You say such experiments don't exist, despite the fact that they are documented. You LIE when you say the experiments don't exist, just because you aren't familiar with them. I'm not LYING. YOU are lying. You are a fraud. Everyone -- everyone -- know this. > > > > > There are MANY "SR effects". Mutual time dilation is one of MANY SR > > effects, but it does not apply in the case of GPS. > > ROTFLOL....back you your bullshit assertions. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > >...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 > > ... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 21 May 2010 13:35 On May 20, 1:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 7:57 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. 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. > > That is your assertion. Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > Experimental evidence disfavors your assertions and supports SR. Hey idiot it is not an assertion. clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates.....even SR says that. > > > > > > > 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. No comment on this??? > > > > > 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. > > No, Ken, you need to READ, rather than to regurgitate what others have > told you here on a newsgroup. You need to read....al you ever do is to tell me to read...and at the same time your understanding of SR is questionable. You made up stuff and claim that that's what SR says and you even disagree with more knowledgeable SRians such as Tom Roberts. For example: You insisted that length contraction in Sr is physical and Tom disagreed with you. > > > > > > 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. > > Yes, it is. It has been experimentally tested. Just not in GPS, > because it doesn't apply there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > That's a lie, Ken. You are profoundly unaware of MOST of the > experiments that have been done that have tested the claims of > relativity. That's not a lie....no experiment shows that A sees B runs slow and B sees A runs slow at the same time. Ken Seto > > You are taking the stance that if you've not heard of something, then > it doesn't exist. > > This is the stance of an egomaniac and a scientific fraud. > > You state lies about the status of experimental evidence. This is > scientific fraud. You are a fraud, Ken. > > > > > > > >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 -- 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 21 May 2010 14:16 On May 21, 12:35 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 20, 1:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 7:57 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. 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. > > > That is your assertion. Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > Experimental evidence disfavors your assertions and supports SR. > > Hey idiot it is not an assertion. clocks in relative motion accumulate > clock seconds at different rates.....even SR says that. You say SR says this. Where??? Reference, please. If you cannot provide the reference where SR says this, then at least have the decency to confess you are lying when you say SR says so. > > > > > > 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. > > No comment on this??? It's not worth commenting on Ken. This is what YOUR mind comes up with. It doesn't have any bearing on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > No, Ken, you need to READ, rather than to regurgitate what others have > > told you here on a newsgroup. > > You need to read....al you ever do is to tell me to read... Yes, I do tell you over and over and over again to read. > and at the > same time your understanding of SR is questionable. Then stop arguing with me about it and READ about it to find out what the truth is. > You made up stuff > and claim that that's what SR says and you even disagree with more > knowledgeable SRians such as Tom Roberts. For example: You insisted > that length contraction in Sr is physical and Tom disagreed with you. No, he didn't. He said it was geometric AND that geometry is physical. YOU said that geometry is NOT physical. Tom did not disagree with me. You didn't understand what either he or I said. You need to stop arguing with people on usenet about relativity and READ about it. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Yes, it is. It has been experimentally tested. Just not in GPS, > > because it doesn't apply there. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > That's a lie, Ken. You are profoundly unaware of MOST of the > > experiments that have been done that have tested the claims of > > relativity. > > That's not a lie....no experiment shows that A sees B runs slow and B > sees A runs slow at the same time. Yes there is. I've already described it to you. You wanted it explained in more detail. You even insisted that Michael Moroney wanted the detail. Now you insist that the experiment has never been done. You're a liar, Ken, a fraud. > > Ken Seto > >
From: Sam Wormley on 21 May 2010 16:42 On 5/21/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > On May 20, 11:11 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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" > > 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. Why do you fail to understand this point, Ken? > >> >> 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: kenseto on 22 May 2010 08:44
On May 21, 4:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/21/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 11:11 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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" > > > 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.... > > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |