SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 22 May 2010 09:23 On May 21, 1:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No you learn what SR says. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates and that's confirmed experimentally. > > > > > > > > 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. ROTFLOL....you don't have an arguement so you keep on telling me to read papers. is that what you tell your students when they ask you a taugh question that you don't have a valid ANSWER??? Ken Seto > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 10:10 On 5/22/10 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote: > On May 21, 4:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/21/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Hey idiot we are talking about the SR effect on the GPS. >> >> Now that IS A PROBLEM isn't it, Seto, as SR is not a sufficient >> tool to account for the relativistic corrections necessary to make >> GPS work properly. If you want to talk GPS, then we must talk GTR. > > Hey idiot the GTR equation for time dilation contains two parts: One > based on gravitational potential AND the SR effect is based on > velocity. The SR effect is calculated using SR equation. > > Ken Seto > >> Why do you fail to understand this point, Ken? >> >>>> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html >> Ken, the time dilation observed is satellite clocks is predicted by general relativity, whereas the time dilation in satellite clocks is not accounted for by special relativity. What part of that do you not get?
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 13:02 On 5/22/10 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > No you learn what SR says. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock > seconds at different rates and that's confirmed experimentally. That depends on the observer.
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 13:03 On 5/22/10 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot....SR says that an observed clock runs slow....that means > that it accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the > observer's clock.. Whether a clock runs slow or not is strictly observer dependent.
From: kenseto on 23 May 2010 09:07
On May 22, 1:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/22/10 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Hey idiot....SR says that an observed clock runs slow....that means > > that it accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the > > observer's clock.. > > Whether a clock runs slow or not is strictly observer dependent. Hey idiot....the PoR of SR allows every SR observer to assume that an observed clock runs slow compared to the observer's clock. |