SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 23 May 2010 09:09 On May 22, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that an observed clock runs slow.
From: kenseto on 23 May 2010 09:11 On May 22, 10:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.... > > 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? Hey prediction is comprised of gravitational effect and SR effect. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 23 May 2010 09:46 On 5/23/10 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > On May 22, 10:10 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Hey prediction is comprised of gravitational effect and SR effect. > > Ken Seto > Look at equations 33-36 and the reasoning of the derivation, Ken. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html You really should read the Ashby's whole article.
From: Sam Wormley on 23 May 2010 09:49 On 5/23/10 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > On May 22, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that an observed clock runs slow. For any given observer, the time dilation due relative radial velocity is given by ∆t' = γ ∆t where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) .
From: Sam Wormley on 23 May 2010 09:58
On 5/23/10 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. The degree of time dilation is observer dependent. Suppose you and I have different velocities with respect to Clock A. Of course we each measure time dilation ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . But, having different relative velocities to clock A, we measure different values for ∆t_A'. PD come along with yet another relative velocity to clock A and get yet another value for ∆t_A' . Time dilation is certainly observer dependent. For non zero v, ∆t_A' > ∆t_A |