Prev: colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
Next: Witness the physical effect as matter converts to aether
From: eric gisse on 17 Jul 2010 17:28 PD wrote: [...] > Of course it is. Read the papers. > Your blind assertion that the experiments do not exist is just that. > An assertion. What is Ken trying to accomplish at this point? [...]
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 13:43 On Jul 23, 9:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:51 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Assertion is not a valid arguement. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > mutual time dilation. > > > > > > > That's YOUR assertion that there is no experiment. The experimental > > > > > > literature is there, and I've referred you to experiments you can look > > > > > > up. > > > > > > No scuh experiment exists...what you referred to are not relevant to > > > > > the concept of mutual time dilation. > > > > > Of course it is. Read the papers. > > > > Your blind assertion that the experiments do not exist is just that.. > > > > An assertion. > > > > Of course it is not...mutual time dilation requires reading from both > > > clocks...no experiment can do that. > > > What? Whatever gave you that idea? > > Because that's what mutual time dilation means?? Accoridng to A's > clock B is running slow....according to B's clock A is running slow. Whatever gave you the idea that no experiment can accomplish reading from both clocks? > > > > > You have this goofball notion that if things are moving too fast, we > > can't measure anything about them, or that the measurement must > > involve one person standing in a room and trying to read two clocks at > > the same time. > > > You've got ZERO idea how to design or run an experiment or even how to > > record a measurement automatically. > > > > Beside the GPS refute the SR claim > > > of mutual time dilation. > > > SR says specifically that mutual time dilation will not occur in the > > GPS system, so there is no SR claim of mutual time dilation in the GPS > > system. > > Then why does the SR effect on the gPS is calculated using the SR > equations??? 1. It's not. The GPS time lag is calculated using GR, not SR. 2. Even if it did "use the SR equations" does not mean you expect mutual time dilation. As I've told you repeatedly, mutual time dilation does not apply in every case you use SR. SR only says mutual time dilation will be observed in certain cases, and in other situations (where you can still use SR) you will not see mutual time dilation. You have this bonehead idea that in any case where you're using SR, you'll see mutual time dilation. > > Ken Seto > > > > >We've discussed this dozens of times, and you still have not > > absorbed this. Are you slow in the head? > > > > From the ground clock point of view the GPS > > > is 7 us/day running slow. From the GPS point of view the ground clock > > > is ~7 us/day running fast. No mutual time dilation there. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Or you can continue to deny reality. That would be a mental > > > > > > > disorder, though. > > > > > > > > > > The GPS refute the > > > > > > > > > idea of mutal time dilation. > > > > > > > > > You are simply repeating the same mistake. SR does not predict mutual > > > > > > > > time dilation for the GPS case. Any attempt to misuse SR to lay its > > > > > > > > claims where SR says they wouldn't apply, is simply pilot error. > > > > > > > > ROTFLOL....if mutual time dilation exists then it should apply to any > > > > > > > situation. > > > > > > > Nonsense, Ken. Physical laws do not work that way. NONE of them do. > > > > > > You need to revisit basic science. > > > > > > The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the > > > > > GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7 us/day > > > > > running fast. These figures uses the SR equations to calculate so- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: Daryl McCullough on 23 Jul 2010 14:15 PD says... > >On Jul 23, 9:44=A0am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> Then why does the SR effect on the gPS is calculated using the SR >> equations??? > >1. It's not. The GPS time lag is calculated using GR, not SR. I think that what Ken might be thinking of is this: If you take the Schwarzschild metric for the Earth, and then use it to compute the elapsed time on a clock moving in the Earth's gravitational field, in the approximation in which v << c, and GM/r << c^2, you get: dT/dt = 1 - 1/2 (v/c)^2 - GM/(c^2 r) + terms of order (v/c)^4 where T is the elapsed time on the clock, t is the coordinate time (using Schwarzschild coordinates), v is the speed of the clock, M is the mass of the Earth, and G is Newton's constant. You can think of the terms in the following way: 1. Nonrelativistically, the result would be 1 (coordinate time and clock time are the same, even for moving clocks). 2. SR makes a correction to the non-relativistic prediction equal to - 1/2 (v/c)^2 in lowest-order. 3. GR makes a correction to the SR prediction equal to - GM/(c^2 r) in lowest order. Of course, all three terms are present in the GR prediction. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 14:28 On Jul 23, 1:15 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > PD says... > > > > >On Jul 23, 9:44=A0am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> Then why does the SR effect on the gPS is calculated using the SR > >> equations??? > > >1. It's not. The GPS time lag is calculated using GR, not SR. > > I think that what Ken might be thinking of is this: > If you take the Schwarzschild metric for the Earth, and then > use it to compute the elapsed time on a clock moving in the > Earth's gravitational field, in the approximation in which > v << c, and GM/r << c^2, you get: > > dT/dt = 1 - 1/2 (v/c)^2 - GM/(c^2 r) + terms of order (v/c)^4 > > where T is the elapsed time on the clock, t is the coordinate > time (using Schwarzschild coordinates), v is the speed of the > clock, M is the mass of the Earth, and G is Newton's constant. > > You can think of the terms in the following way: > > 1. Nonrelativistically, the result would be 1 (coordinate time > and clock time are the same, even for moving clocks). > > 2. SR makes a correction to the non-relativistic prediction equal > to - 1/2 (v/c)^2 in lowest-order. > > 3. GR makes a correction to the SR prediction equal to - GM/(c^2 r) > in lowest order. > > Of course, all three terms are present in the GR prediction. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY Understood. Newton's first law is a special case of Newton's second law. Now consider an object accelerating under the influence of a force, for which you would usually apply Newton's second law rather than the first, for which there is the result s = (v_0)t + 1/2(F/m)t^2 the first term being something expected from Newton's first law and the second coming from the second law. Follow my drift?
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 15:28
stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: >I think that what Ken might be thinking of is this: >If you take the Schwarzschild metric for the Earth, and then >use it to compute the elapsed time on a clock moving in the >Earth's gravitational field, in the approximation in which >v << c, and GM/r << c^2, you get: >dT/dt = 1 - 1/2 (v/c)^2 - GM/(c^2 r) + terms of order (v/c)^4 >where T is the elapsed time on the clock, t is the coordinate >time (using Schwarzschild coordinates), v is the speed of the >clock, M is the mass of the Earth, and G is Newton's constant. >You can think of the terms in the following way: >1. Nonrelativistically, the result would be 1 (coordinate time >and clock time are the same, even for moving clocks). >2. SR makes a correction to the non-relativistic prediction equal >to - 1/2 (v/c)^2 in lowest-order. >3. GR makes a correction to the SR prediction equal to - GM/(c^2 r) >in lowest order. >Of course, all three terms are present in the GR prediction. That is essentially what I was doing in my earlier replies. The correction terms were small enough (parts per billion) that the equation could be broken into what I called an SR term (7uS/day) and a GR term (45uS/day) that could be treated independently as the higher terms ((v/c)^4 or higher) could be ignored. Of course it's all GR and I should have called it a motion component and a gravitational well component. Given the caveat that I'm ignoring higher order terms, is there anything wrong with the following logic: An observer on a GPS satellite would see a ground clock as running slow by ~53 uS/day, 7uS/day slow due to relative motion of the earth (as far as the satellite is concerned) and 45uS/day slow due to the fact the ground clock is lower in a gravitational well than the satellite. |