SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiation Pressure.
Next: 9/11 nutbag * Hates US * cannot provide cite to his disproven claim that PNAC "wanted the attack" because that is a lie; inside job proven physically impossible
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 15:12 On Jul 26, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 8:45 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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.. > > > And so because the clocks are not all running at the same rates, > > they're not identical. Aha. > > If they are identical the passage of a clock second in A's frame would > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. No, that's simply not right. I gave you the prescription for determining that the clocks are identical. Both clocks are calibrated against an identical and local physical process. If you will look at the definition of the second, you will see the best example we have of an identical and local process. The identicalness of clocks is NOT set -- at least in physics -- by whether two relatively moving clocks record the same time between one pair of spacetime events. It just isn't. > Since the > passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of 1/ > gamma second on B's frame....these clock are no longer identical when > they are in relative motion. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > So what you are saying is that identical physical processes (like the > > oscillation of IDENTICAL spring-mass systems) all take different > > amounts of absolute time. > > Yes....A clock second in A's frame corresponds to 1/gamma second in > B's frame. That means that 1 A second and 1/gamma B second contains > the same amount of absolute time. That means that there is no absolute > time dilation. > > The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground > clock by redefining the GPS second to have (N+4.46) periods of the Cs > 133 radiation vs the ground clcok second of N periods of Cs 133 > radiation. The redfined GPS second and the ground clock second will > contain the same amount of absolute time. > > > > > Aha. > > > And so the laws of physics that describe how much time these physical > > processes will take are all worthless, because no physical law can > > tell you how much time they will take? > > No the current physical laws are not worthless....they need new > interpretations to include the concept of absolute time. Sorry, Ken, but the physical laws tell you HOW MUCH. They give a NUMBER. You cannot reinterpret laws to give a different number without changing the laws. > The GPS > designers realize that and they designed a workable system based on > the existence of absolute time. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 -- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 16:43 On Jul 26, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > If they are identical the passage of a clock second in A's frame would > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. Only Seto can look at a sentence like "Identical clocks in relative inertial motion will not measure the same time between two events," and immediately conclude that SR is contradictory. Seto's thinking: if the two clocks do not measure the same time, then they obviously are not identical. If they are identical, then they obviously will measure the same time. It does not occur to Seto that if a single sentence sounds contradictory to him, then Seto might not understand the meaning of the words in the sentence. To Seto, not understanding something is emotionally repulsive and simply cannot be entertained. He'd rather believe that a single sentence shows the contradiction in a theory than to believe that he doesn't understand the meanings of the words in a sentence. Seto is an emotionally crippled, senile, old man. Sad.
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 10:28 On Jul 26, 3:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 9:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 25, 8:45 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > And so because the clocks are not all running at the same rates, > > > they're not identical. Aha. > > > If they are identical the passage of a clock second in A's frame would > > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. > > No, that's simply not right. Sure that's right. >I gave you the prescription for > determining that the clocks are identical. Both clocks are calibrated > against an identical and local physical process. >If you will look at > the definition of the second, you will see the best example we have of > an identical and local process. But once you move them apart they will no longer remain calibrated...for example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.46 periods of Cs 133 radiation for it to remain calibrated with the ground clock. > > The identicalness of clocks is NOT set -- at least in physics -- by > whether two relatively moving clocks record the same time between one > pair of spacetime events. It just isn't. This is wrong interpretation....relative moving clock seconds contain a different amount of absolute time. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Since the > > passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of 1/ > > gamma second on B's frame....these clock are no longer identical when > > they are in relative motion. > > > > > > 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. > > > > So what you are saying is that identical physical processes (like the > > > oscillation of IDENTICAL spring-mass systems) all take different > > > amounts of absolute time. > > > Yes....A clock second in A's frame corresponds to 1/gamma second in > > B's frame. That means that 1 A second and 1/gamma B second contains > > the same amount of absolute time. That means that there is no absolute > > time dilation. > > > The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground > > clock by redefining the GPS second to have (N+4.46) periods of the Cs > > 133 radiation vs the ground clcok second of N periods of Cs 133 > > radiation. The redfined GPS second and the ground clock second will > > contain the same amount of absolute time. > > > > Aha. > > > > And so the laws of physics that describe how much time these physical > > > processes will take are all worthless, because no physical law can > > > tell you how much time they will take? > > > No the current physical laws are not worthless....they need new > > interpretations to include the concept of absolute time. > > Sorry, Ken, but the physical laws tell you HOW MUCH. They give a > NUMBER. You cannot reinterpret laws to give a different number without > changing the laws. > > > > > The GPS > > designers realize that and they designed a workable system based on > > the existence of absolute time. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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 -- 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 -- 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: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:31 On Jul 26, 11:34 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 9:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 8:45 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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.. > > > And so because the clocks are not all running at the same rates, > > they're not identical. Aha. > > If they are identical the passage of a clock second in A's frame would > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. Since the > passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of 1/ > gamma second on B's frame....these clock are no longer identical when > they are in relative motion. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > So what you are saying is that identical physical processes (like the > > oscillation of IDENTICAL spring-mass systems) all take different > > amounts of absolute time. > > Yes....A clock second in A's frame corresponds to 1/gamma second in > B's frame. That means that 1 A second and 1/gamma B second contains > the same amount of absolute time. That means that there is no absolute > time dilation. > > The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground > clock by redefining the GPS second to have (N+4.46) periods of the Cs > 133 radiation vs the ground clcok second of N periods of Cs 133 > radiation. The redfined GPS second and the ground clock second will > contain the same amount of absolute time. > > > > > Aha. > > > And so the laws of physics that describe how much time these physical > > processes will take are all worthless, because no physical law can > > tell you how much time they will take? > > No the current physical laws are not worthless....they need new > interpretations to include the concept of absolute time. The GPS > designers realize that and they designed a workable system based on > the existence of absolute time. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Lies lies and more lies from Ken.
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 10:38
On Jul 26, 4:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > If they are identical the passage of a clock second in A's frame would > > correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. > > Only Seto can look at a sentence like > "Identical clocks in relative inertial motion will not measure the > same time between two events," > and immediately conclude that SR is contradictory. Sigh....the passage of an A second correspond to the passage of 1/ gamma second on the B clcok. > > Seto's thinking: if the two clocks do not measure the same time, then > they obviously are not identical. If they are identical, then they > obviously will measure the same time. Sigh....clocks in relative motion cannot be identical. For example: the GPS second have to be redefined by including 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation....this redfinition is designed to make the GPS clock runs at the same rate as the ground clock. Ken Seto > > It does not occur to Seto that if a single sentence sounds > contradictory to him, then Seto might not understand the meaning of > the words in the sentence. To Seto, not understanding something is > emotionally repulsive and simply cannot be entertained. > > He'd rather believe that a single sentence shows the contradiction in > a theory than to believe that he doesn't understand the meanings of > the words in a sentence. > > Seto is an emotionally crippled, senile, old man. Sad. |