Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 9 Jul 2010 10:37 On Jul 8, 2:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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? Why don't you ask your runt brother PD....he said that nutual time dilation doesn't apply in the GPS case and you claimed that mutual time dilation apply in the GPS case. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 9 Jul 2010 12:08 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 8, 2:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(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? >Why don't you ask your runt brother PD....he said that nutual time >dilation doesn't apply in the GPS case and you claimed that mutual >time dilation apply in the GPS case. No, I just said GR rules apply to the GPS satellite. Read what I wrote.
From: kenseto on 9 Jul 2010 14:28 On Jul 9, 12:08 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 8, 2:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(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? > >Why don't you ask your runt brother PD....he said that nutual time > >dilation doesn't apply in the GPS case and you claimed that mutual > >time dilation apply in the GPS case. > > No, I just said GR rules apply to the GPS satellite. Read what I wrote.. Hey idiot you wrote that from the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running slow.....and from the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is also 7 us/day running slow. That is mutual time dilation.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 14:47 On 7/9/10 1:28 PM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot you wrote that from the GPS point of view the SR effect on > the ground clock is ~7us/day running slow.....and from the ground > clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is also 7 us/day > running slow. That is mutual time dilation. > > That's wrong, Seto. One need general relativity arguments to calculate time dilation for GPS satellite, and similarly the time dilation of ground clocks from the perspective of the GPS satellites. You can't have both perspective simultaneously. Pick one or the other. General relativity make the correct prediction of time dilation every time. Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html shows you how. You couldn't get the right answer if your life depended on it!
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 15:12
On 7/9/10 1:48 PM, kenseto wrote: > According to SR the bug dies at two different times....one time before > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the other time > after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. That is a > contradiction because the bug dies only at one instant of time. > > Ken Seto > No... One can only have one perspective at a time. Special relativity predicts the observed event precisely. The bug, if it dies, only dies once for each observer. Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109 |