Some Contradictory Claims of SR. [Physics]

Prev: 9-11 Kooks - * Hates US * still afraid to post one single thing in his physically impossible claims that he wants to defend -- he can't and he won't because they're all lies
Next: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY

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 -

From: Sam Wormley on 2 Jul 2010 09:37

On 7/2/10 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 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?
>

Seto do you have any idea how to calculate the time dilation as
seen from the surface of the earth of a satellite clock in a
circular orbit at an orbital altitude of 202 km?

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 2 Jul 2010 09:54

On 7/2/10 8:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time.
>
> Ken Seto
>

Wrong, Seto -- One observer. SR is correct every time!