Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jul 2010 23:49 On 7/1/10 9:38 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto<kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> On Jun 30, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> wrote: >>> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >>>> On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Your assertion the GPS sees the ground clock running fast doesn't make >>>>> it true. Your claim "confirmed by experiments" is false. >>>> Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to >>>> calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect >>>> equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of >>>> these two effect is the GR effect. >>> >>> Yes it is an assertion. You assert that SR equations calculate that from >>> the satellite point of view, the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day >>> running *fast*. SR does no such thing, if you do the math you'll see the >>> SR effect will have the satellite clock seeing the ground clock as running >>> *slow*. Of course, as Sam Wormley will point out, you have to use GR >>> because of the gravitational effect. I pointed out in the past the motion >>> part of GR means the ground clock is slowed by ~7 uS/day as far as the >>> satellite clock is concerned, and the ground clock is slowed by another >>> ~45uS/day due to gravitational effects adding to ~52 uS/day running slow >>> but Wormley doesn't like me doing that. (I'm ignoring second order effects >>> and assuming the eccentricity of the orbit is 0) > >> Hey idiot we cover this before.... > > Yet you still haven't learned yet. > >> even wormy disagree with you. > > He disagrees with you much more, and he certainly doesn't agree that SR > motion makes a clock run fast. I'm sure he'll agree with me that that is > an (incorrect) assertion of yours. But, of course. Seto, listen up, I have no qualms with Michael's postings. He is just trying to get you to examine the folly of your misunderstandings about relativity theory.
From: kenseto on 2 Jul 2010 09:12 On Jul 1, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >Hey idiot there is no order of event in this case. There is only one > >> >event....the bug dies at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits it > >> >and both frame must agre to that. > > >> Two events. The rivet head hitting the wall is an event. > >> You are correct in that both frames agree that the bug dies when the > >> rivet head strikes it. > >That's the only event that's relevant.... > > The rivet hitting the wall event seems quite relevant to you, since you've > spent weeks arguing about your inability to understand the order of these > two events. > > >but SR predicts that that the > >bug dies at two different instants of time due to length contraction > >and that is the source of contradiction. > > No it doesn't. Both observers agree that the bug dies, just once. Hey idiot.... 1. both observers must agree that the bug dies at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits it. 2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time. Ken Seto > > >> If this will help you understand that there are two events, add a second > >> bug, on the wall at the edge of the hole. The shaft misses it, the head > >> of the rivet squishes it. Which bug dies first? > > Why not discuss this minor variation? Perhaps it will help you > understand.
From: kenseto on 2 Jul 2010 09:14 On Jul 1, 11:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/1/10 8:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 1:17 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/30/10 9:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Jun 29, 1:41 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 6/29/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> That's not mistaken view. It been confirmed by experiments and the > >>>>> GPS. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS is 7 > >>>>> us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on > >>>>> the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. > > >>>>> Ken Seto > > >>>> Neither of your numbers is correct, Seto, as you MUST take the > >>>> difference in gravitational potential into account. See > >>>> Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > > >>> Hey idiot... my numbers on the SR effect from the ground clock point > >>> of view and from the GPS point of view are correct. > > >> Seto, why are you making up this "SR effect"? The correct tool > >> for the time dilation experienced by satellite clocks is general > >> relativity. I implore you to read, "Relativistic Effects on > >> Satellite Clocks" by Ashby. > > > Hey idiot....the time dilation on the satellite clock is a combined SR > > effect and gravitational potential effect. > > Ken, it has been pointed out to you many many times that general > relativity covers the whole of the time dilation calculation. SR > is encompassed by GTR... they are not independent of each other. Wormy you are an idiot. > > See Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.....- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 2 Jul 2010 09:14 On Jul 1, 11:46 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/1/10 8:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: > >> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >>> On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >>> wrote: > >>>> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >>>>> That's not mistaken view. It been confirmed by experiments and the > >>>>> GPS. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS is 7 > >>>>> us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on > >>>>> the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. > > >>>> Your assertion the GPS sees the ground clock running fast doesn't make > >>>> it true. Your claim "confirmed by experiments" is false. > >>> Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to > >>> calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect > >>> equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of > >>> these two effect is the GR effect. > > >> Yes it is an assertion. You assert that SR equations calculate that from > >> the satellite point of view, the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day > >> running *fast*. SR does no such thing, if you do the math you'll see the > >> SR effect will have the satellite clock seeing the ground clock as running > >> *slow*. Of course, as Sam Wormley will point out, you have to use GR > >> because of the gravitational effect. I pointed out in the past the motion > >> part of GR means the ground clock is slowed by ~7 uS/day as far as the > >> satellite clock is concerned, and the ground clock is slowed by another > >> ~45uS/day due to gravitational effects adding to ~52 uS/day running slow > >> but Wormley doesn't like me doing that. (I'm ignoring second order effects > >> and assuming the eccentricity of the orbit is 0) > > > Hey idiot we cover this before....even wormy disagree with you. > > Ken, it has been pointed out to you many many times that general > relativity covers the whole of the time dilation calculation. SR > is encompassed by GTR... they are not independent of each other. Wormy you are an idiot. > > See Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.....- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 2 Jul 2010 09:16
On Jul 1, 11:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/1/10 9:38 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> On Jun 30, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> wrote: > >>> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >>>> On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Your assertion the GPS sees the ground clock running fast doesn't make > >>>>> it true. Your claim "confirmed by experiments" is false. > >>>> Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to > >>>> calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect > >>>> equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of > >>>> these two effect is the GR effect. > > >>> Yes it is an assertion. You assert that SR equations calculate that from > >>> the satellite point of view, the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day > >>> running *fast*. SR does no such thing, if you do the math you'll see the > >>> SR effect will have the satellite clock seeing the ground clock as running > >>> *slow*. Of course, as Sam Wormley will point out, you have to use GR > >>> because of the gravitational effect. I pointed out in the past the motion > >>> part of GR means the ground clock is slowed by ~7 uS/day as far as the > >>> satellite clock is concerned, and the ground clock is slowed by another > >>> ~45uS/day due to gravitational effects adding to ~52 uS/day running slow > >>> but Wormley doesn't like me doing that. (I'm ignoring second order effects > >>> and assuming the eccentricity of the orbit is 0) > > >> Hey idiot we cover this before.... > > > Yet you still haven't learned yet. > > >> even wormy disagree with you. > > > He disagrees with you much more, and he certainly doesn't agree that SR > > motion makes a clock run fast. I'm sure he'll agree with me that that is > > an (incorrect) assertion of yours. > > But, of course. Seto, listen up, I have no qualms with Michael's > postings. He is just trying to get you to examine the folly of your > misunderstandings about relativity theory. So you now agree with him that the satllite sees the ground clock running 53us/day running slow??? Do you realize that this disagree with actual observation? - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |