Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Michael Moroney on 7 Jul 2010 11:56 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 6, 3:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Hey idiot.... >> >> Since it is you who is having such a tough time understanding this problem >> yet you continue to refuse to learn SR, I'd say that you're the idiot >> around here. >Hey idiot I am not trying to learn SR. And here is the underlying problem. You refuse to learn SR, so you keep arguing the wrong arguments, for some 15 years now. >> >1. both observers must agree that the bug dies at the instant when the >> >tip of the rivet hits it. >> >> Exactly correct. >> >> >2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time. >> >> Wrong. SR predicts the bug dies when the rivet tip hits it, which happens >> exactly once. >Wron....the rivet frame claims that the bug dies before the head of >the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the hole frame calaims that >the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. Again, the bug dies exactly once. Where the two observers disagree is the order of the two events. Just like the two observers and the two stars going nova. Both observers agree the two stars go nova once each. They disagree on the order. Now, if you'd bother to actually sit down with a good book on SR, you might actually learn something. Too bad you refuse to do so.
From: Michael Moroney on 7 Jul 2010 12:06 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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? >> >> WHAT "actual observation" ? Give references. Remember, your assertions >> are just assertions, not facts. >They set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation. That's not a reference to an actual observation. An observation is a description of how something (receiver) on the GPS sees the ground clock. What you mention is an engineering change to the GPS transmitter signal so that the ground receiver has compensation for GR effects. In other words, I am asking how the GPS sees the ground clock. You answered with an engineering change to compensate for how the ground receiver sees the GPS clock. >This setting would not agree with your assertion that the ground clock >is 53us/day running slow. That setting has *nothing to do* with how the GPS sees the ground clock. It's there so that the ground receiver sees the GPS clock correctly!
From: kenseto on 8 Jul 2010 09:07 On Jul 7, 12:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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? > > >> WHAT "actual observation" ? Give references. Remember, your assertions > >> are just assertions, not facts. > >They set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > That's not a reference to an actual observation. An observation is a > description of how something (receiver) on the GPS sees the ground > clock. What you mention is an engineering change to the GPS transmitter > signal so that the ground receiver has compensation for GR effects. > > In other words, I am asking how the GPS sees the ground clock. You > answered with an engineering change to compensate for how the ground > receiver sees the GPS clock. > > >This setting would not agree with your assertion that the ground clock > >is 53us/day running slow. > > That setting has *nothing to do* with how the GPS sees the ground clock. > It's there so that the ground receiver sees the GPS clock correctly! Hey idiot...go talk to your runt brother PD...he said that mutual time dilation does not apply to the GPS situation. Ken Seto
From: Michael Moroney on 8 Jul 2010 14:34 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 7, 12:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> >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? >> >> >> WHAT "actual observation" ? Give references. Remember, your assertions >> >> are just assertions, not facts. >> >They set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation. >> >> That's not a reference to an actual observation. An observation is a >> description of how something (receiver) on the GPS sees the ground >> clock. What you mention is an engineering change to the GPS transmitter >> signal so that the ground receiver has compensation for GR effects. >> >> In other words, I am asking how the GPS sees the ground clock. You >> answered with an engineering change to compensate for how the ground >> receiver sees the GPS clock. >> >> >This setting would not agree with your assertion that the ground clock >> >is 53us/day running slow. >> >> That setting has *nothing to do* with how the GPS sees the ground clock. >> It's there so that the ground receiver sees the GPS clock correctly! >Hey idiot...go talk to your runt brother PD...he said that mutual time >dilation does not apply to the GPS situation. It is true that the GPS satellite is a GR situation that cannot be resolved with SR alone. But we're discussing your inability to provide any support for your assertion that the GPS satellite sees the ground clock runnning 38 uS/day slow, particularly your inability to provide the "actual observation" you claim exists. Did you find it yet?
From: Michael Moroney on 8 Jul 2010 14:50
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 7, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > Hey idiot....in the rivet frame the length of the rivet is 2" long and >> > the hole is 2"/gamma tall and therefore the bug dies before the head >> > of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> > In the hole frame the hole is 2" deep and the length of the rivet is >> > 2"/gamma long and therefore the bug dies after the head of the rivet >> > hits the wall of the hole. >> >> That is not two separate times. You are comparing events that happen >> at two different locations, and their sequence is time dependent. >Sure it is two separate times... >1. the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the >hole. >2. the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. OK, Ken, it's obvious you don't understand enough SR to grasp the bug/rivet problem. Let's go back to the simple case of two stars going nova. It does not involve SR except trivially (a finite speed of light). 1--A--------------------B--2 A is 1 lightyear from Star 1 and 10 lightyears from Star 2. B is 1 lightyear from Star 2 and 10 lightyears from Star 1. Nothing in this diagram is moving relative to anything else in the diagram. A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. The two observers disagree on the order of the stars going nova. They agree that each star goes nova exactly once. How can Star 1 go nova both before and after Star 2 goes nova? That's equivalent to the question you ask with your misunderstanding of the bug/rivet problem (how can the bug die both before and after the rivet head hits the wall?) Once you grasp that the order of events can be strictly observer dependent by understanding the answer to the first sentence of this paragraph, you'll be ready for the bug/rivet problem. |