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: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 09:45 On Jul 24, 11:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Because all cloocks in relative motion are running at different rates. > 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. But each oscillation contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. The GPS second had to be redefined...it contains 4.46 periods more of the Cs133 radiation than the ground clock second. This redefintion is designed to make the GPS second contain the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second. > > 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. No it doesn't.... if A is running fast then B is running slow....B will predict that A is runing fast. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 09:53 On Jul 24, 11:42 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. You were corrected by your runt SR brother PD. He said that mutual time dialtion does not apply in the GPS and you insisted that it applies. > > 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. But your 53us/day running slow for the ground clcok includes mutual time dilation and that means that you disagree with PD. > > >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? Ken Seto >Or you disagree that the > higher terms aren't relevant?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Jul 2010 22:42 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 24, 11:42 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. >You were corrected by your runt SR brother PD. He said that mutual >time dialtion does not apply in the GPS and you insisted that it >applies. No, he did not ever state the ~53us/day number was wrong. He objected to treating the GR effect as the sum of the gravitational effect and the motion effect, discarding higher terms. (I invite him to show me that the higher terms are too significant to be discarded, or to show me the actual number using strictly GR calculations) >> >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. >But your 53us/day running slow for the ground clcok includes mutual >time dilation and that means that you disagree with PD. He disagreed with my method. Again, I invite him to correct me with proper GR calculations.
From: eric gisse on 26 Jul 2010 02:30 Michael Moroney wrote: [...] I'd love to see what happens when the 3 people that talk to the kenseto just stop for a few weeks.
From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 08:20
On Jul 25, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 24, 11:42 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > >You were corrected by your runt SR brother PD. He said that mutual > >time dialtion does not apply in the GPS and you insisted that it > >applies. > > No, he did not ever state the ~53us/day number was wrong. He objected to > treating the GR effect as the sum of the gravitational effect and the > motion effect, discarding higher terms. (I invite him to show me that > the higher terms are too significant to be discarded, or to show me the > actual number using strictly GR calculations) > > >> >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. > >But your 53us/day running slow for the ground clcok includes mutual > >time dilation and that means that you disagree with PD. > > He disagreed with my method. Again, I invite him to correct me with > proper GR calculations. Heyn idiot....he said mutual time dilation does not apply to the GPS and your 53 us/day slow includes mutual time dilation. |