From: kenseto on
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
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
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
From: Sam Wormley on
On 7/8/10 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote:

> 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.
>
> One of these claim is false. The source of the falsehood is that
> length contraction in SR is not physical/material.
>

The world is stacked against you, Ken.

Relativity of simultaneity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

"In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that
simultaneity�whether two events occur at the same time�is not absolute,
but depends on the observer's reference frame. According to the special
theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense
whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated
in space. Where an event occurs in a single place�for example, a car
crash�all observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of
impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space,
such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question
of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference
frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a
different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London
may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

"If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to
two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that
is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to
the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought
experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed
through a garage.

"A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time")
was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted
(to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light
signals by Henri Poincar� in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincar�
based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable
frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in
the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert
Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the
significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space
and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two
stated assumptions:

1. the principle of relativity�the equivalence of inertial frames, such
that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;

2. the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space,
independent of the relative motion of its source.


__________________


Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
reference frames
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109



From: kenseto on
On Jul 9, 3:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

But it dies at two different times according to SR. That means that
the one of the two perspectives derived from the SR concept of
physical length contraction is wrong.

Ken Seto
>
>    Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
>    reference frames
>      http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109