SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
Next: Witness the physical effect as matter converts to aether
From: BURT on 23 Jul 2010 18:37 On Jul 23, 12:28 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > stevendaryl3...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The well goes to even strength. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 10:23 On Jul 23, 3:28 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > stevendaryl3...(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. You were corrected that from the GPS point of view the ground clock is not ~53us/day slow. Why? Because: 1. it invokes the bogus SR concept of mutual time dilation. Evenn PD diagreed with you....he said that mutual time dilation does not apply to the GPS. 2. The redfined GPS second (N+4.46) periods of Cs 133 radiation would not agree with your assertion that the Ground clock is ~53 us/day slow. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 10:31 On Jul 23, 1:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Because there is no identical clock on B???? > > > > 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. GR is a comined effect of SR effect and gravitational effect. > 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. No....mutual time dilation does not apply to any case. It is derived from the bogus assumption that every SR observer is in a state of rest and thus the observed observed clock is doing the moving....that's why every SR observer claims all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 24 Jul 2010 11:01 On Jul 24, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 1:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Because there is no identical clock on B???? What? What makes you think there is no identical clock on B? Here's how you tell the clocks are identical. A measures the period of 1000 oscillations of a spring-mass system sitting right next to A, and a mechanism in the clock records the period on a piece of paper. B measures the period of 1000 oscillations of an identical spring-mass system sitting right next to B, and a mechanism in the clock records the period on a piece of paper. Both pieces of paper are collected a day later and looked at. If the period is the same, then they are identical clocks. These are the same clocks, by the way, that show that according to A's clock, clock B is running slow, and according to B's clock, clock A is running slow. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > GR is a comined effect of SR effect and gravitational effect. No it is not. > > > 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. > > No....mutual time dilation does not apply to any case. Yes, it does. I gave you examples of where it does apply. > It is derived > from the bogus assumption that every SR observer is in a state of rest > and thus the observed observed clock is doing the moving....that's why > every SR observer claims all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 24 Jul 2010 11:42
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 23, 3:28=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> That is essentially what I was doing in my earlier replies. =A0The >> 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. =A0Of 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: =A0An 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. >You were corrected that from the GPS point of view the ground clock is >not ~53us/day slow. Passive voice. I was "corrected" by whom? By you! And of course, since you don't know anything about SR, you don't count. Sam W. disagrees with my simplification, and I disagree with his disagreement. Discarding higher order terms when very small is a useful technique in approximating. > Why? Because: >1. it invokes the bogus SR concept of mutual time dilation. Evenn PD >diagreed with you....he said that mutual time dilation does not apply >to the GPS. The GPS is a GR problem no matter how much you want to present it as strictly SR. >2. The redfined GPS second (N+4.46) periods of Cs 133 radiation would >not agree with your assertion that the Ground clock is ~53 us/day >slow. Why? You disagree with the math 7uS+45uS = 53uS? Or you disagree that the higher terms aren't relevant? |