Notion of Absolute Clock Synchronization in SR
GSS
synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
of absolute simultaneity.
However, as per SR, spatial distance and time measurements have been
rendered 'relative' and cannot be the same value for different
observers in different states of motion. As per SR the notion of
global 'absolute simultaneity' is fundamentally invalid for different
observers in different states of motion. Therefore, the notion of
global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
Since the term 'absolute clock synchronization' is often used in
discussions, I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
SR. Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
Further, I also need some expert opinion on the following situation,
involving clock synchronization.
Two identical precision atomic clocks are positioned side by side at
point A on the surface of earth and mutually synchronized to ensure
that
(a) their clock rates or frequencies are exactly matched or
synchronized
(b) their instantaneous timing offsets are eliminated to ensure that a
common trigger pulse yields the same timing reading t1 from both
clocks.
Assuming the inherent drift of the two atomic clocks is identical and
well within 100 ps per day, it can be demonstrated that while the two
clocks remain side by side, their synchronization, after a period of
one day, is retained at well within one ns accuracy.
Let us shift one of the synchronized atomic clocks to a position B
such that distance AB is about 30 km. As per Newtonian notion of
absolute space and time, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks,
positioned at points A and B, will be retained in tact and this
synchronization can be referred as 'absolute synchronization'. But
according to SR, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks will
'breakdown' during the shifting of one of the clocks from point A to
point B. Since 'after' shifting of one clock to point B on the surface
of earth, there is no relative motion between the two clocks, their
time rates or frequencies will again 'become' synchronized. Therefore,
the only persisting effect of the 'synchronization breakdown' during
shifting or repositioning of the two clocks, will be a motion induced
constant time offset, say dT, in the instantaneous readings of the two
clocks.
My question to the learned Relativity experts is:
What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
timing offset dT between the two clocks?
Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
nanoseconds or less?
Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
(with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
I shall be thankful to the Relativity experts for their valuable
opinions and clarifications.
GSS
Dono.
> Asnip<
Gurcharn,
The relative simultaneity is a consequence of :
t'=\gamma(v)(t-vx/c^2) as in the Lorentz transforms
The above was necessary in order to insure the frame invariance of
Maxwell's em wave equation (see Lorentz' paper on the subject)
By contrast, "absolute synchronization" is a consequence of:
t'=t/\gamma(v) as in the Seleri-Tangherlini transforms
The Seleri-Tangherlini absolute clock synchronization violates the
invariance of the Maxwell em wave equation.
Now, why the fuck would we teach relativity to an imbecile like you?
Tom Roberts
> As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be
> synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
> clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
> motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
> t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
> of absolute simultaneity.
But it conflicts with actual observations of the world we inhabit. Atomic clocks
on earth and in satellites do not remain synchronized. Effective clocks
intrinsic to elementary particles vary widely (factors of 10,000 or more in
rate) with their speed relative to the lab.
> the notion of
> global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
> synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
Yes.
> I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
> clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
> SR.
There is no such definition, as "absolute clock synchronization" does not exist,
either in SR or in the world we inhabit.
> Two identical precision atomic clocks are positioned side by side at
> point A on the surface of earth and mutually synchronized to ensure
> that
> (a) their clock rates or frequencies are exactly matched or
> synchronized
> (b) their instantaneous timing offsets are eliminated to ensure that a
> common trigger pulse yields the same timing reading t1 from both
> clocks.
>
> Assuming the inherent drift of the two atomic clocks is identical and
> well within 100 ps per day, it can be demonstrated that while the two
> clocks remain side by side, their synchronization, after a period of
> one day, is retained at well within one ns accuracy.
OK. Note that to achieve that accuracy requires multiple atomic clocks and a
good algorithm to construct a so-called "paper clock".
> Let us shift one of the synchronized atomic clocks to a position B
> such that distance AB is about 30 km. As per Newtonian notion of
> absolute space and time, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks,
> positioned at points A and B, will be retained in tact and this
> synchronization can be referred as 'absolute synchronization'. But
> according to SR, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks will
> 'breakdown' during the shifting of one of the clocks from point A to
> point B. Since 'after' shifting of one clock to point B on the surface
> of earth, there is no relative motion between the two clocks, their
> time rates or frequencies will again 'become' synchronized. Therefore,
> the only persisting effect of the 'synchronization breakdown' during
> shifting or repositioning of the two clocks, will be a motion induced
> constant time offset, say dT, in the instantaneous readings of the two
> clocks.
It is NOT true that "there is no relative motion between the two clocks" -- that
is valid ONLY relative to the rotating earth, which is not an inertial frame. It
is invariably wrong to attempt to make conclusions based on non-inertial frames
without careful considerations of the implications of their non-inertialness.
Relative to any inertial frame, these two clocks do have different velocities.
The effect of their separation on their relative timing depends IN DETAIL on how
they were moved, what their relative positions are, and how they are compared.
No general conclusion can be made without specifying at least those details.
> What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
> timing offset dT between the two clocks?
As I said above, it depends on details you did not give. But for a mere 30 km
separation, assuming it is horizontal and not vertical, I would not expect it to
be large.
> Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
> nanoseconds or less?
Given sufficient information, it can be computed using GR. The gravitation of
the earth can be important here, in which case SR is inadequate. But if one
stipulates the two clocks both remain on earth's geoid, or at equal altitudes
from it, then gravitation can be neglected and SR is sufficient.
With that stipulation, and assuming the 30 km transport is at automobile speeds
or less, I would not expect the clocks to differ by as much as a nanosecond.
IIRC actual tests of atomic clocks in automobiles showed about a nanosecond
difference after a full day at highway speeds.
Certainly several hours sitting at the top of a mountain can
exceed that difference relative to a clock in the valley.
http://leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/
(a small mountain only 5400 ft high, ~20 ns for a weekend)
> Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
> (with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
> offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
As I said, the details matter. It is also impossible to specify what dT is when
they are separated without specifying how the ambiguities of the comparison are
handled, and there is no unique and definitive way to do that. But upon
re-joining, the difference does not go to zero.
Tom Roberts
kenseto
Let's assume that when the B clock stop at 30 km away from A the A
clock shows a time interval of Delta(tA). Therefore Delta(tB) is
calculated as follows:
Delta(tB)=Delta(tA)/gamma_A
What this mean is that the B clock will lag behind the A clock by a
factor of Delta(tB) when it is stopped 30 km from A.
>
> My question to the learned Relativity experts is:
> What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
> timing offset dT between the two clocks?
> Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
> nanoseconds or less?
>
> Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
> (with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
> offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
The B clock will lag behind the A clock by a factor of 2.dT.
Ken Seto
PD
> As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be
> synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
> clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
> motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
> t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
> of absolute simultaneity.
>
> However, as per SR, spatial distance and time measurements have been
> rendered 'relative' and cannot be the same value for different
> observers in different states of motion. As per SR the notion of
> global 'absolute simultaneity' is fundamentally invalid for different
> observers in different states of motion. Therefore, the notion of
> global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
> synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
>
> Since the term 'absolute clock synchronization' is often used in
> discussions, I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
> clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
> SR.
Sure. One such procedure is as follows.
1. Start at clock A and note the time T1.
2. Proceed to clock B by any method of travel that is guaranteed to be
at constant speed.
3. At arrival at clock B, note the time T2.
4. Proceed back to clock A by the same method of travel, and at the
same speed.
5. At arrival at clock A, note the time T3.
6. If T3-T2 = T2 - T1, then the clocks are synchronized. If T3-T2 > T2-
T1, then clock B is running slow and should be set forward by half the
difference noted. If T3-T2 < T2-T1, then clock B is running fast and
should be set back by half the difference noted.
> Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
> or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
> observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics.
>
> Further, I also need some expert opinion on the following situation,
> involving clock synchronization.
>
> Two identical precision atomic clocks are positioned side by side at
> point A on the surface of earth and mutually synchronized to ensure
> that
> (a) their clock rates or frequencies are exactly matched or
> synchronized
> (b) their instantaneous timing offsets are eliminated to ensure that a
> common trigger pulse yields the same timing reading t1 from both
> clocks.
>
> Assuming the inherent drift of the two atomic clocks is identical and
> well within 100 ps per day, it can be demonstrated that while the two
> clocks remain side by side, their synchronization, after a period of
> one day, is retained at well within one ns accuracy.
>
> Let us shift one of the synchronized atomic clocks to a position B
> such that distance AB is about 30 km. As per Newtonian notion of
> absolute space and time, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks,
> positioned at points A and B, will be retained in tact and this
> synchronization can be referred as 'absolute synchronization'. But
> according to SR, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks will
> 'breakdown' during the shifting of one of the clocks from point A to
> point B.
No, this is not what SR says. The clocks are still synchronized in the
frame in which they are at rest. However, they are not synchronized in
any frame where the two clocks are moving.
kenseto
Sorry the B clock will lag behind the A clock by a factor of:
[Delta(tA)-Delta(tB)]
>
>
>
> > My question to the learned Relativity experts is:
> > What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
> > timing offset dT between the two clocks?
> > Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
> > nanoseconds or less?
>
> > Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
> > (with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
> > offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
>
> The B clock will lag behind the A clock by a factor of 2.dT.
Sorry the B clock will lag behind the A clock by a factor of:
2[Delta(tA)-Delta(tB)]
Ken Seto
Inertial
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc07edb2-eb8e-4bec...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be
> synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
> clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
> motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
> t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
> of absolute simultaneity.
Except we know experimentally this cannot be done
> However, as per SR, spatial distance and time measurements have been
> rendered 'relative' and cannot be the same value for different
> observers in different states of motion. As per SR the notion of
> global 'absolute simultaneity' is fundamentally invalid for different
> observers in different states of motion. Therefore, the notion of
> global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
> synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
That's right
> Since the term 'absolute clock synchronization' is often used in
> discussions, I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
> clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
> SR.
It doesn't exist. Noone who understands SR talks about any absolute clock
synchronization, other than to point out that there is no such thing.
It is possible to get three clocks where A is synced with B in one frame,
and B with C in another frame, and yet A is not synced with C in either
frame. So absolute sync is not possible.
> Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
> or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
> observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
There is no such procedure, because there is no such thing.
Da Do Ron Ron
> On Mar 11, 9:35 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
> > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
> > observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
>
> This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics.
Careful, PD, ol' boy, you know that a negative can't be proved.
Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics
uses absolute time.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html
"And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain
the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely
Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time."
~~RA~~
Inertial
"Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0df07b16-99d7-4f22...@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 9:35 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
>> > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
>> > observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
>>
>> This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics.
>
> Careful, PD, ol' boy, you know that a negative can't be proved.
Yes it can .. because we know that we can have three clocks where A and B
are in sync (in one frame), and B and C are in sync (in another), but A and
C are not (in either). That proves there is no such thing as absolute clock
sync.
> Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics
> uses absolute time.
>
> http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html
>
> "And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain
> the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely
> Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time."
So are you claiming the quantum physics is irreconcilable with special
relativity, because quantum physics REQUIRES "absolute ideal time" (whatever
is meant by that)?
Tom Roberts
> Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics
> uses absolute time.
> http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html
> "And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain
> the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely
> Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time."
Yes, quantum mechanics uses an absolute time coordinate. But we also know that
QM is wrong. Quantum field theories such as the standard model are much better
models of the world we inhabit, and they use no "absolute time" -- they are
Lorentz invariant.
Tom Roberts
BURT
universe there is a universal instant.
Mitch Raemsch
GSS
> GSS wrote:
>> As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be
>> synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
>> clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
>> motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
>> t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
>> of absolute simultaneity.
>
> But it conflicts with actual observations of the world we inhabit. Atomic clocks
> on earth and in satellites do not remain synchronized. Effective clocks
> intrinsic to elementary particles vary widely (factors of 10,000 or more in
> rate) with their speed relative to the lab.
>
misinterpretation of the physical situation, that is carried too far!
>> the notion of
>> global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
>> synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
>> clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
>> SR.
>
> There is no such definition, as "absolute clock synchronization" does not exist,
> either in SR or in the world we inhabit.
>
But the definition of clock synchronization does exist. Is there no
alternative method of clock synchronization other than e-
synchronization?
Do you mean to imply that the clock rates or their frequencies will no
longer match (even when both clocks are at rest on the surface of
earth or say geoid) just because both A and B appear to have different
'velocities' in ECI or that the line segment AB is seen to be rotating
in ECI? To elaborate this point, let us assume that clocks A and B are
positioned along the equator and the frequency mismatch due to their
rotation about the earth axis is dF. Synchronize a third clock with
clock B and then shift to point B_1 on the equator such that BB_1 is
equal to AB. Then the frequency mismatch between clocks B and B_1 will
also be dF and the cumulative frequency difference between A and B_1
will be 2*dF. Similarly synchronize and position n more identical
clocks at equidistant locations B_2, B_3 ... B_n along the equator,
such that the last clock B_n comes back close to A and the cumulative
frequency difference between A and B_n will be (n+1)*dF. However,
since the two identical clocks B_n and A are positioned close by, they
must be in synchronization and their frequency mismatch must be zero.
This can be true only if dF is equal to zero. That means all clocks on
the surface of earth, say geoid, must remain synchronized irrespective
of their rotation about the earth axis.
Do you agree?
Thanks for your valuable opinion.
GSS
GSS
>
Kindly clarify what do you mean by the term gamma_A. We are shifting
clock B with respect to A. Do you imply gamma_A to be a function of
'average' separation velocity of clock B with respect to A? Is it a
standard method of computing the clock lag when two identical
synchronized clocks are separated by slow transport? Tom Roberts does
not seem to agree with this method.
>> My question to the learned Relativity experts is:
>> What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
>> timing offset dT between the two clocks?
>> Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
>> nanoseconds or less?
>
>> Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
>> (with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
>> offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
>
> The B clock will lag behind the A clock by a factor of 2.dT.
>
> Ken Seto
>
Inertial
> On Mar 11, 10:07 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> GSS wrote:
>>> As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be
>>> synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
>>> clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
>>> motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
>>> t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
>>> of absolute simultaneity.
>>
>> But it conflicts with actual observations of the world we inhabit. Atomic
>> clocks
>> on earth and in satellites do not remain synchronized. Effective clocks
>> intrinsic to elementary particles vary widely (factors of 10,000 or more
>> in
>> rate) with their speed relative to the lab.
>>
> Elementary particles do not 'carry' any intrinsic clocks. It is a
> misinterpretation of the physical situation, that is carried too far!
There are processes that happen with elementary particle that serve the
purpose as a clock
>>> the notion of
>>> global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
>>> synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
>>> clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
>>> SR.
>>
>> There is no such definition, as "absolute clock synchronization" does not
>> exist,
>> either in SR or in the world we inhabit.
>>
> But the definition of clock synchronization does exist.
Yes it does .. but you cannot absolutely synchronize (clock sync is frame
dependent)
> Is there no
> alternative method of clock synchronization other than e-
> synchronization?
E-synch is simply common sense. If you have tow fixed clocks, and a fixed
speed signal between them, Then for the clocks to be in any way considered
in sync, the timing for them must show the same time for the fixed speed
signal to travel the same distance.
If they don't, then no-one in his right mind would call clocks that didn't
show this 'synchronized'.
There are other methods of obtaining synchronized clocks .. eg place two
clocks together, set them to the same time, then move them apart with the
same (but opposite) speeds. It can be shown this results in a sync the same
as e-synch
kenseto
> > Delta(tB)=Delta(tA)/gamma_A
> > What this mean is that the B clock will lag behind the A clock by a
> > factor of [Delta(tA)-Delta(tB)] when it is stopped 30 km from A.
>
> Kindly clarify what do you mean by the term gamma_A.
Gamma_A is determined by A by measuring B's average velocity during
its transit from A to 30 km away.
>We are shifting
> clock B with respect to A. Do you imply gamma_A to be a function of
> 'average' separation velocity of clock B with respect to A?
Yes.
>Is it a
> standard method of computing the clock lag when two identical
> synchronized clocks are separated by slow transport? Tom Roberts does
> not seem to agree with this method.
Slow clock transport will minimize the lag between B and A. The best
way to synch the two clocks is as follows:
1. separte A and B in the opposite directions with the same velocity
and stop them simultaneously.
2. Then bring them back together with the same velocity.
3. These two clocks should remain synchronized.
Ken Seto
>
> >> My question to the learned Relativity experts is:
> >> What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
> >> timing offset dT between the two clocks?
> >> Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
> >> nanoseconds or less?
>
> >> Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
> >> (with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
> >> offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
>
> > The B clock will lag behind the A clock by a factor of 2.dT.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Thanks for your valuable opinion.
>
> GSS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
GSS
synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us
examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical
precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest
frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been
perfectly matched. The matching of the two frequencies is a physical
phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and
sophisticated components. But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by
different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be
out of synchronization. That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be
mismatched by different amount to different observers in different
states of motion.
However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks is
a physical phenomenon controlled through their hardware circuitry and
sophisticated components. How do you think different observers in
different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the
hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to
create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the
mere act of 'viewing' from a distance? Do you think there is some
'magic' involved in creating this phenomenon, which ordinary humans
cannot understand?
GSS
GSS
.....
>
> There are other methods of obtaining synchronized clocks .. eg place two
> clocks together, set them to the same time, then move them apart with the
> same (but opposite) speeds. It can be shown this results in a sync the same
> as e-synch
Kindly give me a link or reference where it is shown that the above
synch method is the same as e-synch.
GSS
Inertial
Not in ALL other frames.
> Let us
> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical
> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest
> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been
> perfectly matched. The matching of the two frequencies is a physical
> phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and
> sophisticated components. But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by
> different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be
> out of synchronization.
Yes.
> That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be
> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different
> states of motion.
No .. it means they show different times. it does not mean they are ticking
at different rates
> However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks is
> a physical phenomenon controlled through their hardware circuitry and
> sophisticated components. How do you think different observers in
> different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the
> hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to
> create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the
> mere act of 'viewing' from a distance? Do you think there is some
> 'magic' involved in creating this phenomenon, which ordinary humans
> cannot understand?
Clearly you are the one not understanding what synching clocks means.
rotchm
> You say that two clocks 'synchronized' in their rest frame, are 'not
> synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us
> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical
> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest
> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been
> perfectly matched.
Yes... But not only their frequencies (rate) but their "initial
value". That initial value is the synchronization.
>The matching of the two frequencies is a physical
> phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and
> sophisticated components.
Yup...
>But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by
> different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be
> out of synchronization.
Yup. The initial values of the observer's clocks ( his "time") no
longer corresponds to the initial values of the observED (moving)
clocks.
>That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be
> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different
> states of motion.
No... For a particular observer observing the two (moving) clocks,
those clocks have the same frequency; are ticking at the same rate.
Its their initial value that no longer corresponds to the observer's
clocks ( his "time").
> However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks
There is no mismatch in frequencies for any observer.
> How do you think different observers in
> different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the
> hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to
> create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the
> mere act of 'viewing' from a distance?
They dont influence the frequencies not the hardware. That is why the
frequencies remain matched. What they do change is *their* initial
values of *their* own clocks (their "time"); They sych their own
clocks, not the observed (moving) clocks. Their own synchronization
( initial values) will not correspond to the initial values of the two
observed clocks.
harald
You can easily show that to yourself by using the PoR: in the
coordinate system in which the clocks were in rest, they will appear
to slightly slow down by the same amount. Thus they must stay in sync
with each other according to any standard clocks (e-synched) that they
pass.
Harald
harald
No. Essentially it means that their clock COUNTS have been matched,
according to the sync convention. Clocks can have the same clock
frequencies without being synchronized at all, and they can also be
synchronized at a certain point in time (only at that time) without
having the same frequency.
Harald
PD
I'm not sure how you would distinguish what the clocks "are" from what
they "appear" to be. You read the clocks and see what they say. This
tells you what they are. It would be foolish to read a clock and
presume that what it reads is not what it really is.
>
> However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks is
> a physical phenomenon controlled through their hardware circuitry and
> sophisticated components.
No, this is a common mistake. The presumption is that if clocks read
differently, then there must have been something that physically
interacted with the clocks to alter their mechanism. This is not the
case.
> How do you think different observers in
> different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the
> hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to
> create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the
> mere act of 'viewing' from a distance? Do you think there is some
> 'magic' involved in creating this phenomenon, which ordinary humans
> cannot understand?
It is not magic and it is straightforward for humans to understand. It
is important, though, that the human being able to entertain a new
notion other than what he is used to, for nature is broader and richer
than what we once thought it was.
Most importantly, one has first to recognize that if it is measured,
it is real. This is not something whose plausibility is in question.
If it is seen, then OF COURSE it is plausible, because it is something
that actually happens. Once you get your head wrapped around that,
THEN you can start figuring out how it happens.
The mistake that some people make is not believing that something
happens until you can understand how it can happen. In physics, the
observation of what really does happen sometimes precedes a good
understanding of how that is possible.
PD
Tom Roberts
> [clocks] can also be
> synchronized at a certain point in time (only at that time) without
> having the same frequency.
We do not call this "synchronized". The whole point of synchronizing clocks is
so they can be used together to make related measurements of something. Two
clocks that indicate the same time only once cannot be used together.
After all, a stopped "clock" is correct twice a day!
(In physics, we don't call such a device a "clock"; it is
merely a clockface with unmoving hands.)
Tom Roberts
GSS
>> You say that two clocks 'synchronized' in their rest frame, are 'not
>> synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us
>> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical
>> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest
>> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been
>> perfectly matched.
>
> Yes... But not only their frequencies (rate) but their "initial
> value". That initial value is the synchronization.
>
I hope all other Relativity experts agree with your contention.
>>The matching of the two frequencies is a physical
>> phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and
>> sophisticated components.
>
> Yup...
>
> >But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by
> > different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be
> > out of synchronization.
>
> Yup. The initial values of the observer's clocks ( his "time") no
> longer corresponds to the initial values of the observED (moving)
> clocks.
>
Does it mean that the 'initial values' of two identical atomic clocks
A and B, if matched in their rest frame, will remain mutually matched
even in moving observer's frame, even though these 'initial values'
will no longer match with the initial values of the observer's clocks
( his "time")?
>>That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be
>> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different
>> states of motion.
>
> No... For a particular observer observing the two (moving) clocks,
> those clocks have the same frequency; are ticking at the same rate.
> Its their initial value that no longer corresponds to the observer's
> clocks ( his "time").
>
Again this is an important point.
May I request Tom Roberts to confirm if this contention is true as per
SR?
> > However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks
>
> There is no mismatch in frequencies for any observer.
>
> > How do you think different observers in
> > different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the
> > hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to
> > create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the
> > mere act of 'viewing' from a distance?
>
> They don't influence the frequencies not the hardware. That is why the
> frequencies remain matched. What they do change is *their* initial
> values of *their* own clocks (their "time"); They sych their own
> clocks, not the observed (moving) clocks. Their own synchronization
> ( initial values) will not correspond to the initial values of the two
> observed clocks.
Thanks for your valuable clarification.
I only hope this is true as per SR.
GSS
rotchm
> On Mar 12, 7:29 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:>> You say that two clocks 'synchronized' in their rest frame, are 'not
> >> synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us
> >> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical
> >> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest
> >> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been
> >> perfectly matched.
>
> > Yes... But not only their frequencies (rate) but their "initial
> > value". That initial value is the synchronization.
>
> This is an important point.
> I hope all other Relativity experts agree with your contention.
"experts" is relative. Many "experts" are self proclaimed.
> > Yup. The initial values of the observer's clocks ( his "time") no
> > longer corresponds to the initial values of the observED (moving)
> > clocks.
>
> Does it mean that the 'initial values' of two identical atomic clocks
> A and B, if matched in their rest frame, will remain mutually matched
> even in moving observer's frame, even though these 'initial values'
> will no longer match with the initial values of the observer's clocks
> ( his "time")?
Let C1 and C2 be the two (moving) clocks which havee ben synched in
their mutual frame.
Let them start to tick/count with a value of zero. The initial values
are zero.
Now let an (O)bserver move wrt these two clocks. The O has synched
*his* own clocks; has set up 'time' in his frame. As C1 initially
coincides with O's clock K1 ( what ever clock it is), k1 indicates
something... say zero too. But as C2 ( as it indicates a value of
zero) coincides with O's clock K2, K2 will not indicate zero:
C1_____C2_____ ... frame with sped v.
K1_____K2_____ ...
C1=0, K1 = wlg 0. There exist a clock K2 that coincides with C2 as
this C2 indicates zero. The value on K2 at this coincidence will not
be zero.
IOW, time in C and K are not in synch.
>
> >>That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be
> >> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different
> >> states of motion.
>
> > No... For a particular observer observing the two (moving) clocks,
> > those clocks have the same frequency; are ticking at the same rate.
> > Its their initial value that no longer corresponds to the observer's
> > clocks ( his "time").
>
> Again this is an important point.
> May I request Tom Roberts to confirm if this contention is true as per
> SR?
Note that all observers ( C's and K's ) agree that C1 and C2 started
with the value of zero.
Its the relation of these zero's with the observers clocks ( K's)
which is different. Take care on what is meant here by 'initial
values' ...
Da Do Ron Ron
Smolin said this:
"So, in theoretical physics, we have at present not one theory of
nature but two theories: relativity and quantum mechanics, and they
are based on two different notions of time."
"at present" = "currently"
~~RA~~
Da Do Ron Ron
> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0df07b16-99d7-4f22...@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 11, 9:35 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
> >> > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
> >> > observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
>
> >> This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics.
>
> > Careful, PD, ol' boy, you know that a negative can't be proved.
>
> Yes it can .. because we know that we can have three clocks where A and B
> are in sync (in one frame), and B and C are in sync (in another), but A and
> C are not (in either). That proves there is no such thing as absolute clock
> sync.
>
You did not prove that A and B were actually in synch, so your
argument is no good.
Besides, absolute synch can exist in a single frame between a
pair of clocks, and you cannot prove that this cannot happen.
> > Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics
> > uses absolute time.
>
> >http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html
>
> > "And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain
> > the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely
> > Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time."
>
> So are you claiming the quantum physics is irreconcilable with special
> relativity, because quantum physics REQUIRES "absolute ideal time" (whatever
> is meant by that)?
Since absolute ideal time is the other side of the coin from
Einstein's
relative time, one who understands the latter must also understand
the
former.
~~RA~~
Inertial
its very simple .. because they are in sync (ie they will still time a fixed
speed signal between them as travelling the same time in both directions).
That is the case in SR and LET and ballistic theories and naives aether
theories.
Inertial
> On Mar 11, 5:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:0df07b16-99d7-4f22...@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 11, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 11, 9:35 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment'
>> >> > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
>> >> > observers in different states of motion within our solar system.
>>
>> >> This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics.
>>
>> > Careful, PD, ol' boy, you know that a negative can't be proved.
>>
>> Yes it can .. because we know that we can have three clocks where A and B
>> are in sync (in one frame), and B and C are in sync (in another), but A
>> and
>> C are not (in either). That proves there is no such thing as absolute
>> clock
>> sync.
>>
>
> You did not prove that A and B were actually in synch,
I don't have to *prove* that they are .. I am describing a scenario, and in
that scenario we have synced the clocks .. that means they are in sync.
> so your
> argument is no good.
>
Yes it is
> Besides, absolute synch can exist in a single frame between a
> pair of clocks, and you cannot prove that this cannot happen.
That is not ABSOLUTE sync. That is frame-dependent sync, because in OTHER
frames those same clocks are NOT in sync
Really .. this isn't that hard a concept to grasp
Inertial
> On Mar 12, 7:29 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You say that two clocks 'synchronized' in their rest frame, are 'not
>>> synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us
>>> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical
>>> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest
>>> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been
>>> perfectly matched.
>>
>> Yes... But not only their frequencies (rate) but their "initial
>> value". That initial value is the synchronization.
>>
> This is an important point.
> I hope all other Relativity experts agree with your contention.
Of course. We assume we are talking about correct clocks are ticking at the
correct rate in their frame so they indicate correct elapsed times (ie that
in one hours time they will show a time one hour ahaead of what it is now).
What we synchronize is the readings on those clocks at a given time, so they
both will show the same reading simultaneously.
You are talking about clocks that are not working correctly (at least one of
them must be at the wrong ticking rate, and show not show correct elapsed
times).
>>>The matching of the two frequencies is a physical
>>> phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and
>>> sophisticated components.
>>
>> Yup...
>>
>> >But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by
>> > different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be
>> > out of synchronization.
>>
>> Yup. The initial values of the observer's clocks ( his "time") no
>> longer corresponds to the initial values of the observED (moving)
>> clocks.
>>
> Does it mean that the 'initial values' of two identical atomic clocks
> A and B, if matched in their rest frame, will remain mutually matched
> even in moving observer's frame,
They are never matched in the moving observers frame (unless the clocks have
the same x-coordinate if we take their motion as being in the x-direction in
that frame)
They can be matched in one frame .. or in the other .. or in none. Not in
both.
> even though these 'initial values'
> will no longer match with the initial values of the observer's clocks
> ( his "time")?
>
>>>That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be
>>> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different
>>> states of motion.
>>
>> No... For a particular observer observing the two (moving) clocks,
>> those clocks have the same frequency; are ticking at the same rate.
>> Its their initial value that no longer corresponds to the observer's
>> clocks ( his "time").
>>
> Again this is an important point.
> May I request Tom Roberts to confirm if this contention is true as per
> SR?
Tom Roberts is knowledgeable .. but he isn't the keeper of all that is SR
>> > However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks
>>
>> There is no mismatch in frequencies for any observer.
>>
>> > How do you think different observers in
>> > different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the
>> > hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to
>> > create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the
>> > mere act of 'viewing' from a distance?
>>
>> They don't influence the frequencies not the hardware. That is why the
>> frequencies remain matched. What they do change is *their* initial
>> values of *their* own clocks (their "time"); They sych their own
>> clocks, not the observed (moving) clocks. Their own synchronization
>> ( initial values) will not correspond to the initial values of the two
>> observed clocks.
>
> Thanks for your valuable clarification.
> I only hope this is true as per SR.
Did you not already know this? Hopefully it means you have learnt something
then
kenseto
No....clocks in relative motion are running at different rates....that
means that they are continually out of synch. What this mean is that A
and B will continually accumulate different elapsed time and the
longer they are in relative motion the larger is the difference in
accumulated elapsed time.
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> On Mar 11, 10:07 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> But it conflicts with actual observations of the world we inhabit. Atomic clocks
>> on earth and in satellites do not remain synchronized. Effective clocks
>> intrinsic to elementary particles vary widely (factors of 10,000 or more in
>> rate) with their speed relative to the lab.
>>
> Elementary particles do not 'carry' any intrinsic clocks.
Sure they do, effectively. The decay of unstable particles proceeds with a
constant probability per unit time, so the number remaining decreases
exponentially with time. This can be measured very accurately, as a function of
the particle's speed relative to the lab. At any given speed the exponential
decrease is an excellent model, and the decay constant of that exponential
behaves as a function of speed quite accurately in agreement with the prediction
of SR.
>> There is no such definition, as "absolute clock synchronization" does not exist,
>> either in SR or in the world we inhabit.
>>
> But the definition of clock synchronization does exist.
The definition of clock synchronization includes the requirement that
synchronized clocks REMAIN in synch. That manifestly does not happen for clocks
that are not at rest in the same locally-inertial frame [#].
Just because a definition of clock synchronization exists does not mean it is
"absolute".
[#] Or certain other special cases, such as clocks at rest on
earth's geoid. These special cases all rely on various effects
of their non-inertial motion canceling out. For instance, the
geoid is such that the latitude-dependent effect of speed
relative to the ECI is canceled by gravitation.
> Is there no
> alternative method of clock synchronization other than e-
> synchronization?
There are an infinite number of ways one could adjust the offsets of a pair of
clocks. Most of them would not merit the name "synchronization". Except for the
above special cases, all the ones that merit that name apply only when the
clocks are at rest in the same locally-inertial frame, and in that frame they
are all equivalent to Einstein's synchronization method.
That is, if you adjust two clocks' offsets, and they then fail any of Einstein's
methods, then nobody would call those clocks "synchronized".
Exercise for the reader: How is this applied to clocks at rest
on the geoid? Hint: there is a reason the GPS uses the ECI frame.
>> It is NOT true that "there is no relative motion between the two clocks" -- that
>> is valid ONLY relative to the rotating earth, which is not an inertial frame. It
>> is invariably wrong to attempt to make conclusions based on non-inertial frames
>> without careful considerations of the implications of their non-inertialness.
>> Relative to any inertial frame, these two clocks do have different velocities.
>
> Do you mean to imply that the clock rates or their frequencies will no
> longer match (even when both clocks are at rest on the surface of
> earth or say geoid) just because both A and B appear to have different
> 'velocities' in ECI or that the line segment AB is seen to be rotating
> in ECI?
You need to read what I wrote. For some methods of comparison of their
frequencies, the answer is that they are equal, and for other methods of
comparison the answer is they are different. This simple and obvious method is
in the first set: send a light signal between them along a path fixed on the
rotating earth and compare one clock to the signal from the other clock.
> [...] all clocks on
> the surface of earth, say geoid, must remain synchronized irrespective
> of their rotation about the earth axis.
No. You discussed COMPARING FREQUENCIES, not being synchronized. The frequencies
will compare equal as long as they are all at rest on the geoid. That's why the
geoid is important for planet-wide clock synchronization.
But clocks at other altitudes, or clocks that are moving on the geoid, will not
have frequencies equal to those at rest on the geoid (for sensible methods of
comparison). THAT is my point -- there is nothing "absolute" or "universal" here.
You only discussed comparing the clocks' frequencies, going in
short steps around the equator. If, instead, you had discussed
pairwise synchronization, you would find that when you got back
to your starting point, the first and last clocks are NOT
synchronized, even though each adjacent pair of clocks is. And
the difference would depend on the direction you went around.
Metrologists call this the "Sagnac effect" and account for it
when comparing clocks at different labs.
Exercise for the reader: GSS's argument could easily be modified
to synchronize clock pairs rather than compare frequencies. Find
the fallacy in that. Then explain why his argument works for
frequency comparisons but not for synchronization. Hint: this
second point is nontrivial -- remember what I said above about
special cases needing effects to cancel.
Tom Roberts
Sue...
> GSS wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 10:07 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> But it conflicts with actual observations of the world we inhabit. Atomic clocks
> >> on earth and in satellites do not remain synchronized. Effective clocks
> >> intrinsic to elementary particles vary widely (factors of 10,000 or more in
> >> rate) with their speed relative to the lab.
>
> > Elementary particles do not 'carry' any intrinsic clocks.
>
> Sure they do, effectively. The decay of unstable particles proceeds with a
> constant probability per unit time, so the number remaining decreases
> exponentially with time. This can be measured very accurately, as a function of
> the particle's speed relative to the lab. At any given speed the exponential
> decrease is an excellent model, and the decay constant of that exponential
> behaves as a function of speed quite accurately in agreement with the prediction
> of SR.
Can you offer the name of a metrology laboratory that has
exploited this "very accurate" method of marking time?
Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status
BURT
> On Mar 13, 12:59 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > GSS wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 10:07 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> But it conflicts with actual observations of the world we inhabit. Atomic clocks
> > >> on earth and in satellites do not remain synchronized. Effective clocks
> > >> intrinsic to elementary particles vary widely (factors of 10,000 or more in
> > >> rate) with their speed relative to the lab.
>
> > > Elementary particles do not 'carry' any intrinsic clocks.
>
> > Sure they do, effectively. The decay of unstable particles proceeds with a
> > constant probability per unit time, so the number remaining decreases
> > exponentially with time. This can be measured very accurately, as a function of
> > the particle's speed relative to the lab. At any given speed the exponential
> > decrease is an excellent model, and the decay constant of that exponential
> > behaves as a function of speed quite accurately in agreement with the prediction
> > of SR.
>
> Can you offer the name of a metrology laboratory that has
> exploited this "very accurate" method of marking time?
>
> Sue...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aether flows over energy in the direction of energy's propagation
through space. Speeding up energy slows the aether flow by one rate
out of two. The flow is always in the same direction as the energy is
moving into.
Mitch Raemsch; one flow direction over energy and field is the
simplest concept
BURT
> As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be
> synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic
> clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of
> motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads
> t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion
> of absolute simultaneity.
>
> However, as per SR, spatial distance and time measurements have been
> rendered 'relative' and cannot be the same value for different
> observers in different states of motion. As per SR the notion of
> global 'absolute simultaneity' is fundamentally invalid for different
> observers in different states of motion. Therefore, the notion of
> global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e-
> synchronization) is no longer valid in SR.
>
> Since the term 'absolute clock synchronization' is often used in
> discussions, I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly
> clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in
> or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all
>
> Further, I also need some expert opinion on the following situation,
> involving clock synchronization.
>
> Two identical precision atomic clocks are positioned side by side at
> point A on the surface of earth and mutually synchronized to ensure
> that
> (a) their clock rates or frequencies are exactly matched or
> synchronized
> (b) their instantaneous timing offsets are eliminated to ensure that a
> common trigger pulse yields the same timing reading t1 from both
> clocks.
>
> Assuming the inherent drift of the two atomic clocks is identical and
> well within 100 ps per day, it can be demonstrated that while the two
> clocks remain side by side, their synchronization, after a period of
> one day, is retained at well within one ns accuracy.
>
> Let us shift one of the synchronized atomic clocks to a position B
> such that distance AB is about 30 km. As per Newtonian notion of
> absolute space and time, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks,
> positioned at points A and B, will be retained in tact and this
> synchronization can be referred as 'absolute synchronization'. But
> according to SR, the mutual synchronization of the two clocks will
> 'breakdown' during the shifting of one of the clocks from point A to
> of earth, there is no relative motion between the two clocks, their
> time rates or frequencies will again 'become' synchronized. Therefore,
> the only persisting effect of the 'synchronization breakdown' during
> shifting or repositioning of the two clocks, will be a motion induced
> constant time offset, say dT, in the instantaneous readings of the two
> clocks.
>
> What is the order of magnitude of this 'relative motion induced'
> timing offset dT between the two clocks?
> Can it be precisely calculated in SR? Is it likely to be within a few
> nanoseconds or less?
>
> Suppose we now shift the clock at point B to bring it back to point A,
> (with an identical speed and acceleration profile), will this timing
> offset dT now increase to 2.dT or reduce to zero?
>
> opinions and clarifications.
>
> GSS
Relative motion in the distance has no gamma. Only accelerated energy
exepriences changes in math gamma. What has never accelerated does not
change in its clock. You cannot change anothers clock by changing your
own motion. Only your clock can change by your motion through space.
Mitch Raemsch; energy flowing faster has a slower clock by motion rate
harald
That misses the point of my correction of the OP (both of which you
snipped) and my last remark was in general*. The OP wrongly thought
that two clocks that have the same frequency are necessarily
synchronized. The OP thus missed an essential point about
synchronizing clocks.
* It's unclear who "we" are. For physicists it's rather standard to
synchronize running clocks at the start of an experiment without
assuming that they run perfectly in sync during the experiment, and
this is also common language of textbooks (see for an online example
http://mamacass.ucsd.edu/people/pblanco/physics2d/handout1/index.html:
"we can arrange for the clocks to synchronize when O' passes O, i.e.
t'=t=0").
Harald
Inertial
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:b4db03e0-4bbb-4ab5...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 5:13 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> harald wrote:
>> > [clocks] can also be
>> > synchronized at a certain point in time (only at that time) without
>> > having the same frequency.
>>
>> We do not call this "synchronized". The whole point of synchronizing
>> clocks is
>> so they can be used together to make related measurements of something.
>> Two
>> clocks that indicate the same time only once cannot be used together.
>>
>> After all, a stopped "clock" is correct twice a day!
>> (In physics, we don't call such a device a "clock"; it is
>> merely a clockface with unmoving hands.)
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> That misses the point of my correction of the OP (both of which you
> snipped) and my last remark was in general*. The OP wrongly thought
> that two clocks that have the same frequency are necessarily
> synchronized. The OP thus missed an essential point about
> synchronizing clocks.
Yeup
> * It's unclear who "we" are. For physicists it's rather standard to
> synchronize running clocks at the start of an experiment without
> assuming that they run perfectly in sync during the experiment
Then there is not much point in doing so :)
> , and
> this is also common language of textbooks (see for an online example
> http://mamacass.ucsd.edu/people/pblanco/physics2d/handout1/index.html:
> "we can arrange for the clocks to synchronize when O' passes O, i.e.
> t'=t=0").
Yes .. you can synchronize them momentarily. But they are not e-synced
then.
There problem here is two different uses of the term.
Synchronizing clocks in the first sense means making their readings show the
same time AT the same time. Such clocks may only be synchrnoized for a
moment.
E-sync means that the ELAPSED times of both clocks correspond, as well as
the readings at some time. E-sync'd clocks remain in synch.
harald
> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
Perfect clocks for experiments don't exist - we just have to account
for the errors in practice. In theoretical descriptions we can work
with "perfect" clocks, but even those can deviate as illustrated
below.
> > , and
> > this is also common language of textbooks (see for an online example
> >http://mamacass.ucsd.edu/people/pblanco/physics2d/handout1/index.html:
> > "we can arrange for the clocks to synchronize when O' passes O, i.e.
> > t'=t=0").
>
> Yes .. you can synchronize them momentarily. But they are not e-synced
> then.
>
> There problem here is two different uses of the term.
Indeed, the LT's t0 sync is a different synchronization.
> Synchronizing clocks in the first sense means making their readings show the
> same time AT the same time. Such clocks may only be synchrnoized for a
> moment.
>
> E-sync means that the ELAPSED times of both clocks correspond, as well as
> the readings at some time. E-sync'd clocks remain in synch.
Thanks for the elaboration. But more precisely: e-synched "perfect",
"stationary" clocks remain in sync (if at the same gravitational
potential). Now, let's hope that the OP will understand this. :)
Cheers,
Harald
Inertial
But we 'assume' that they do.
>> > , and
>> > this is also common language of textbooks (see for an online example
>> >http://mamacass.ucsd.edu/people/pblanco/physics2d/handout1/index.html:
>> > "we can arrange for the clocks to synchronize when O' passes O, i.e.
>> > t'=t=0").
>>
>> Yes .. you can synchronize them momentarily. But they are not e-synced
>> then.
>>
>> There problem here is two different uses of the term.
>
> Indeed, the LT's t0 sync is a different synchronization.
>
>> Synchronizing clocks in the first sense means making their readings show
>> the
>> same time AT the same time. Such clocks may only be synchrnoized for a
>> moment.
>>
>> E-sync means that the ELAPSED times of both clocks correspond, as well as
>> the readings at some time. E-sync'd clocks remain in synch.
>
> Thanks for the elaboration. But more precisely: e-synched "perfect",
> "stationary" clocks remain in sync (if at the same gravitational
> potential). Now, let's hope that the OP will understand this. :)
Yeup .. I think we're all on the same track here.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
In the ECI frame of GPS all the clocks remain synchronized, even if
they have different velocities and gravitational potentials. Then,
taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
the same time lecture at any local instant in all the others inertial
frames. Of course, that equal “time lecture” does not correspond to
the local time in each of the others inertial frames, where according
to SR rules, the now moving clocks (all with the same velocity) are
running slower than the local “perfect and stationary” e-synchronised
ones.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> Cheers,
> Harald- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Tom Roberts
> In the ECI frame of GPS all the clocks remain synchronized, even if
> they have different velocities and gravitational potentials.
This is not true of STANDARD clocks. The clocks in the GPS satellites have been
modified so this is approximately true. That can only be done for certain
highly-symmetric situations, such as clocks in circular orbits around a planet
in which other effects can be neglected. Indeed, in the GPS those other effects
are not neglected, but are corrected for.
These modified clocks are not what we normally mean when we say "clock".
> Then,
> taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
> other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
> exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
> clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
> the same time lecture at any local instant in all the others inertial
> frames.
This is simply not true. Synchronizing clocks in frame A, and looking at them
from frame B, they are not in synch if B is moving wrt A.
The modified clocks of the GPS are synchronized only in the ECI frame. That, of
course, is sufficient for the GPS, but is completely and utterly inadequate to
claim "absolute clock synchronization".
Tom Roberts
Sue...
> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> > In the ECI frame of GPS all the clocks remain synchronized, even if
> > they have different velocities and gravitational potentials.
>
> This is not true of STANDARD clocks. The clocks in the GPS satellites have been
> modified so this is approximately true. That can only be done for certain
> highly-symmetric situations, such as clocks in circular orbits around a planet
> in which other effects can be neglected. Indeed, in the GPS those other effects
> are not neglected, but are corrected for.
>
> These modified clocks are not what we normally mean when we say "clock".
>
> > Then,
> > taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
> > other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
> > exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
> > clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
> > the same time lecture at any local instant in all the others inertial
> > frames.
>
===============
> This is simply not true. Synchronizing
[coordinate time]
> clocks in frame A, and looking at them
> from frame B, they are not in synch if B is moving wrt A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status
Sue....
harald
Hi Rafael, how are you doing?
What you claim here above is completely wrong. As I already indicated,
clocks that have been synchronized (both in setting and in pace) "in"
one reference system, will deviate if they are put at another
gravitational potential or given another speed without being re-tuned.
See also the clarifications of Tom Roberts.
Harald
Inertial
news:e7397e69-ec0c-4d0d...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Becaue they have their ticking rates altered. They are not 'true' clocks.
> Then,
> taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
> other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
> exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
> clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
> the same time lecture
WTF is a 'time lecture' ?
> at any local instant in all the others inertial
> frames.
If they are in sync in one frame, then in (most) others they are not.
> Of course, that equal “time lecture” does not correspond to
> the local time in each of the others inertial frames, where according
> to SR rules, the now moving clocks (all with the same velocity) are
> running slower than the local “perfect and stationary” e-synchronised
> ones.
WTF is a 'time lecture' ?
va...@icmf.inf.cu
post, I admit serious mistakes in it. We are in agreement about the
fact that the time rate of a clock depends on gravitational potential
and speed, and surely we can add other physical conditions (like
temperature, for example). We must take into account all the physical
factors that affect the time rate of a clock when e-synchronizing them
in some inertial frame, with the goal that all the clocks show the
unique time characteristic of the involved inertial frame (ECI in this
case) according to 1905 Einstein very precise time definition. But
what “change” in gravitational potential or speed for a clock already
e-synchronized on the ECI are you talking about? Are you suggesting
that a completely arbitrary change in the reference system can put the
whole Earth moving with a linear velocity as great as you want? That
seems completely absurd to me.
I mentioned the ECI of GPS, taken for granted that the e-
synchronization method of all its clocks is well-known. Let us
remember that all the moving clocks show the unique ECI time,
corresponding to the same time that a similar clock at rest in the
relevant ECI point would show. If now we consider the ECI moving at a
constant velocity with respect to an (imaginary) inertial frame B,
what can we say about the time rate of the ECI clocks appreciated by
an inertial observer at rest in B? Even accepting (what I really put
in doubt) that this change in the reference frame is a physically
valid one, I am unable to understand what is occurring here following
the today accepted SR rules. It was a mistake from my part to say
something about the time rate of the ECI clocks as appreciated for the
inertial observer at rest in B.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
harald
Not sure if this has much to do with the topic. However, I'll try to
clarify, although I'm not sure where the misunderstanding comes from:
"Perfect" synchronized "stationary" clocks remain in sync; in
contrast, if they are made to move or put at another height, they'll
fall out of sync with the remaining "stationary" reference clocks if
nothing is done about it. That's all that I clarified, before and
after you commented on it. It was just a remark on the side for the
OP's understanding of "synchronization", it's not the topic of this
thread.
The topic of this thread is concerned with the fact that according to
all inertial reference systems in which the inertial reference system
with its synchronized clocks is moving, those clocks are out of sync
with each other (see also below).
> I mentioned the ECI of GPS, taken for granted that the e-
> synchronization method of all its clocks is well-known. Let us
> remember that all the moving clocks show the unique ECI time,
> corresponding to the same time that a similar clock at rest in the
> relevant ECI point would show. If now we consider the ECI moving at a
> constant velocity with respect to an (imaginary) inertial frame B,
Note: the ECI "frame" itself is already an imaginary frame...
> what can we say about the time rate of the ECI clocks appreciated by
> an inertial observer at rest in B?
I answered that here above. Einstein also explained and elaborated on
that issue in his 1905 paper with a slightly different example (in
section 2), as follows:
"We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the [moving] rod,
clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any
instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where
they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the
stationary system.''
[..]
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two
clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system
would declare the clocks to be synchronous. ")
> Even accepting (what I really put
> in doubt) that this change in the reference frame is a physically
> valid one, I am unable to understand what is occurring here following
> the today accepted SR rules. It was a mistake from my part to say
> something about the time rate of the ECI clocks as appreciated for the
> inertial observer at rest in B.
Regards,
Harald
va...@icmf.inf.cu
the centre of mass inertial system corresponding to the Earth and all
the GPS satellites, a well-determined real part of our real world. But
the introduced inertial frame B doesn’t have any real body at all
associated with it, being that the reason why I denote it an imaginary
entity.
> > what can we say about the time rate of the ECI clocks appreciated by
> > an inertial observer at rest in B?
>
> I answered that here above. Einstein also explained and elaborated on
> that issue in his 1905 paper with a slightly different example (in
> section 2), as follows:
>
> "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the [moving] rod,
> clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
> system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any
> instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where
> they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the
> stationary system.''
> [..]
“stationary system” is the ECI, the “moving system” is any GPS
satellite. The clock inside the satellite is synchronized in the
“stationary system”, not in the “moving system”.
> Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two
> clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system
> would declare the clocks to be synchronous. ")
>
satellite) appreciates all ECI clocks “out of synchronism”, but who
care that?
I feel now very happy with your very valuable reference to 1905
Einstein first paper on Relativity. Now we can make real the imaginary
inertial frame B identifying it with a moving GPS satellite (the real
inertial frame B is the centre of mass one corresponding to the
satellite and all bodies in its interior).
Consider now the inertial Solar System (the centre of mass one of all
its bodies). In principle, we can synchronize clocks in all its
planets, showing all of them the same unique time defined by 1905
Einstein. Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
choosing its title.
> > Even accepting (what I really put
> > in doubt) that this change in the reference frame is a physically
> > valid one, I am unable to understand what is occurring here following
> > the today accepted SR rules. It was a mistake from my part to say
> > something about the time rate of the ECI clocks as appreciated for the
> > inertial observer at rest in B.
>
> Regards,
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> > In the ECI frame of GPS all the clocks remain synchronized, even if
> > they have different velocities and gravitational potentials.
>
> This is not true of STANDARD clocks. The clocks in the GPS satellites have been
> modified so this is approximately true. That can only be done for certain
> highly-symmetric situations, such as clocks in circular orbits around a planet
> in which other effects can be neglected. Indeed, in the GPS those other effects
> are not neglected, but are corrected for.
>
> These modified clocks are not what we normally mean when we say "clock".
>
time for an inertial system, as defined by 1905 Einstein with all
precision. If you have a different version, can you make it explicit?
> > Then,
> > taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
> > other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
> > exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
> > clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
> > the same time lecture at any local instant in all the others inertial
> > frames.
>
> This is simply not true. Synchronizing clocks in frame A, and looking at them
> from frame B, they are not in synch if B is moving wrt A.
>
> The modified clocks of the GPS are synchronized only in the ECI frame. That, of
> course, is sufficient for the GPS, but is completely and utterly inadequate to
> claim "absolute clock synchronization".
>
> Tom Roberts
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
va...@icmf.inf.cu
showing the unique time correspondig to some inertial system, very
well defined by 1905 Einstein.
> > Then,
> > taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
> > other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
> > exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
> > clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
> > the same time lecture
>
> WTF is a 'time lecture' ?
by the clock in some instant.
>
> > at any local instant in all the others inertial
> > frames.
>
> If they are in sync in one frame, then in (most) others they are not.
>
> > the local time in each of the others inertial frames, where according
> > to SR rules, the now moving clocks (all with the same velocity) are
> > running slower than the local “perfect and stationary” e-synchronised
> > ones.
>
harald
> On 17 mar, 10:34, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 3:34 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > On 16 mar, 17:20, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 3:30 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > > > On 15 mar, 05:53, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
[..]
> > > > > > > E-sync means that the ELAPSED times of both clocks correspond, as well as
> > > > > > > the readings at some time. E-sync'd clocks remain in synch.
>
> > > > > > Thanks for the elaboration. But more precisely: e-synched "perfect",
> > > > > > "stationary" clocks remain in sync (if at the same gravitational
> > > > > > potential). Now, let's hope that the OP will understand this. :)
>
> > > > > (Hello Harald, nice to meet you again).
> > > > > In the ECI frame of GPS all the clocks remain synchronized, even if
> > > > > they have different velocities and gravitational potentials. Then,
> > > > > taking into account that huge experimental evidence, I don’t see any
> > > > > other alternative that to accept that “absolute clock synchronization”
> > > > > exists in SR with the following meaning. Once “perfect and stationary”
> > > > > clocks are e-synchronized in some inertial frame, they remain showing
> > > > > the same time lecture at any local instant in all the others inertial
> > > > > frames. Of course, that equal “time lecture” does not correspond to
> > > > > the local time in each of the others inertial frames, where according
> > > > > to SR rules, the now moving clocks (all with the same velocity) are
> > > > > running slower than the local “perfect and stationary” e-synchronised
> > > > > ones.
>
> > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[..]
> > The topic of this thread is concerned with the fact that according to
> > all inertial reference systems in which the inertial reference system
> > with its synchronized clocks is moving, those clocks are out of sync
> > with each other (see also below).
>
> > > I mentioned the ECI of GPS, taken for granted that the e-
> > > synchronization method of all its clocks is well-known. Let us
> > > remember that all the moving clocks show the unique ECI time,
> > > corresponding to the same time that a similar clock at rest in the
> > > relevant ECI point would show. If now we consider the ECI moving at a
> > > constant velocity with respect to an (imaginary) inertial frame B,
>
> > Note: the ECI "frame" itself is already an imaginary frame...
>
> I don’t understand why you consider the ECI an imaginary frame.
The whole Earth is rotating relative to it; there isn't any material
frame that is pretended to be "in rest".
> It is
> the centre of mass inertial system corresponding to the Earth and all
> the GPS satellites, a well-determined real part of our real world. But
> the introduced inertial frame B doesn’t have any real body at all
> associated with it, being that the reason why I denote it an imaginary
> entity.
> > > what can we say about the time rate of the ECI clocks appreciated by
> > > an inertial observer at rest in B?
>
> > I answered that here above. Einstein also explained and elaborated on
> > that issue in his 1905 paper with a slightly different example (in
> > section 2), as follows:
>
> > "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the [moving] rod,
> > clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
> > system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any
> > instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where
> > they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the
> > stationary system.''
> > [..]
>
> Einstein is describing here exactly what it is done in today GPS.
Yes indeed - except for the gravitation effect, which SRT ignores.
> The
> “stationary system” is the ECI, the “moving system” is any GPS
> satellite. The clock inside the satellite is synchronized in the
> “stationary system”, not in the “moving system”.
> > Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two
> > clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system
> > would declare the clocks to be synchronous. ")
>
> Yes, an inertial observer at rest in the “moving system” (moving GPS
> satellite) appreciates all ECI clocks “out of synchronism”, but who
> care that?
OK, perhaps I misunderstood what you tried to communicate - in which
case I don't know what it was!
In fact, you here agree with the SRT claim that clock synchronisation
(along x) is "relative", in the sense that it is meant.
> I feel now very happy with your very valuable reference to 1905
> Einstein first paper on Relativity. Now we can make real the imaginary
> inertial frame B identifying it with a moving GPS satellite (the real
> inertial frame B is the centre of mass one corresponding to the
> satellite and all bodies in its interior).
You can choose it as you wish, according to SRT (as long as it isn't
rotating, which is incompatible with GPS satellites!).
> Consider now the inertial Solar System (the centre of mass one of all
> its bodies). In principle, we can synchronize clocks in all its
> planets, showing all of them the same unique time defined by 1905
> Einstein.
It is "unique" for the solar system, just as the pair of shoes that I
wear are "unique" for me...
> Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
> something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
> choosing its title.
Perhaps - but it looked as if he was still trying to understand the
basics.
Harald
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quantum vibration does not slow time. The center of the wave moves and
has a two rate clock.
Mitch Raemsch
va...@icmf.inf.cu
conceived a unique true material frame, totally independent from the
bodies, denoting it as “absolute space and absolute time”. But we are
talking here about 1905 Einstein, who declared “superfluous” any
material frame independent from the bodies. Besides, as it was well-
known long before 1905, ANY body set (with specific mass and velocity
for each of its bodies modelled by a material point, except one that
depends on the others) determine a UNIQUE inertial frame where
following Newton’s laws a UNIQUE spatial point can be obtained that
can be considered at rest with respect to itself, named “centre of
mass”. The Earth is rotating in the centre of mass inertial system
determined by all its own parts.
>
>
>
>
> > It is
> > the centre of mass inertial system corresponding to the Earth and all
> > the GPS satellites, a well-determined real part of our real world. But
> > the introduced inertial frame B doesn’t have any real body at all
> > associated with it, being that the reason why I denote it an imaginary
> > entity.
> > > > what can we say about the time rate of the ECI clocks appreciated by
> > > > an inertial observer at rest in B?
>
> > > I answered that here above. Einstein also explained and elaborated on
> > > that issue in his 1905 paper with a slightly different example (in
> > > section 2), as follows:
>
> > > "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the [moving] rod,
> > > clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
> > > system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any
> > > instant to the ``time of the stationary system'' at the places where
> > > they happen to be. These clocks are therefore ``synchronous in the
> > > stationary system.''
> > > [..]
>
> > Einstein is describing here exactly what it is done in today GPS.
>
> Yes indeed - except for the gravitation effect, which SRT ignores.
>
introduced then), adapting it to its new GRT. Even if in 1905
Relativity gravitation remains present (see the gravitational
accelerated movement for the clock put on the rotating equator), 1905
Einstein doesn’t knew yet the gravitation effect on the time rate of a
clock.
> > The
> > “stationary system” is the ECI, the “moving system” is any GPS
> > satellite. The clock inside the satellite is synchronized in the
> > “stationary system”, not in the “moving system”.
> > > Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two
> > > clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system
> > > would declare the clocks to be synchronous. ")
>
> > Yes, an inertial observer at rest in the “moving system” (moving GPS
> > satellite) appreciates all ECI clocks “out of synchronism”, but who
> > care that?
>
> OK, perhaps I misunderstood what you tried to communicate - in which
> case I don't know what it was!
ideas can be evolving somewhat in the time.
> In fact, you here agree with the SRT claim that clock synchronisation
> (along x) is "relative", in the sense that it is meant.
>
frame you select to do it. But let us take some care here, I
distinguish a real inertial system (the centre of mass one associated
to some well-determined body set) from an imaginary one (as all of
them in the 1907 Minkowski view).
> > I feel now very happy with your very valuable reference to 1905
> > Einstein first paper on Relativity. Now we can make real the imaginary
> > inertial frame B identifying it with a moving GPS satellite (the real
> > inertial frame B is the centre of mass one corresponding to the
> > satellite and all bodies in its interior).
>
> You can choose it as you wish, according to SRT (as long as it isn't
> rotating, which is incompatible with GPS satellites!).
>
ECI (or any other inertial frame) has always all its points at rest.
> > Consider now the inertial Solar System (the centre of mass one of all
> > its bodies). In principle, we can synchronize clocks in all its
> > planets, showing all of them the same unique time defined by 1905
> > Einstein.
>
> It is "unique" for the solar system, just as the pair of shoes that I
> wear are "unique" for me...
>
corresponding to the Solar System as long as it is maintained as a
closed one (I forgot to mention explicitly that basic condition when
talking about real inertial frames).
> > Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
> > something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
> > choosing its title.
>
> Perhaps - but it looked as if he was still trying to understand the
> basics.
>
I appreciate a lot this new contact with you. If I remember well, in
the last one (how many years ago?) you said that my Hierarchical
Inertial Frame (HIS) concept was a mix of different theories,
including the Newtonian one. I continue thinking that 1905 Einstein
discovered an absolute (and total, owed to ALL fields that can be
present) potential energy measured by a variable rest mass (depending
on position). Well, this is not the adequate place to talk about all
these things. In reality, I address them now in order to be able to
introduce a possible “absolute time”, the principal topic in this
thread.
What if we consider a sequence of real inertial frames, each one with
a body set that includes de previous one?(…Earth, Solar System, Galaxy,
…). How far can we run in that hierarchy of HIS? If we have a finite
number of bodies in our Universe, the sequence is finite and we would
have all the right to denote as “absolute time” the one corresponding
to the highest hierarchy last HIS. And if our Universe has infinite
number of bodies, in all ways we can talk at least about an “absolute
time” as a limit.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> Harald- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
GSS
> On Mar 18, 3:04 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks for the elaboration. But more precisely: e-synched "perfect",
>>>>>>> "stationary" clocks remain in sync (if at the same gravitational
>>>>>>> potential). Now, let's hope that the OP will understand this. :)
>> Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
>> something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
>> choosing its title.
>
> Perhaps - but it looked as if he was still trying to understand the
> basics.
>
> Harald
Maybe yes, I am still trying to understand the intricacies of clock
synchronization under SR regime.
Let us consider two identical precision atomic clocks, positioned at
points A and B, separated by a distance of about 30 km along east-
west direction, on the surface of earth. Assume the two clocks A and B
are mutually synchronized through Einstein convention such that the
time taken, T_ab, by a laser pulse to propagate from A to B (as
measured from the clock readings of B and A) is the same as the time
taken, T_ba, by a laser pulse to propagate from B to A. That means,
T_ab - T_ba = 0 which indicates e-synchronization of the two clocks.
In your opinion, will this synchronization remain valid at least for a
24 hour period? That is, if we take to and fro signal propagation time
readings at hourly intervals, will all readings show,
T_ab - T_ba = 0
Perhaps you may like to call this mutual synchronization of clocks A
and B as the 'local clock synchronization' valid in the local or lab
frame of the two clocks.
Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two
atomic clocks A and B in the ECI or the GCRF frame. How exactly will
it be different from the local clock synchronization in practical
terms?
Since the two clocks under consideration are simultaneously known to
be co-moving in the solar system at about 30 km/s, you may kindly
explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two atomic
clocks A and B in the solar system BCRF frame. How exactly will it be
different from the local clock synchronization in practical terms?
Going one step still further,the two clocks under consideration are
simultaneously known to be co-moving in the Galactic reference frame
at about 200 km/s. Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization
of the same two atomic clocks A and B in the Galactic reference frame.
How exactly will it be different from the local clock synchronization
in practical terms?
For the sake of simplicity of discussions, you may completely neglect
the gravitational effects on clock synchronization and only account
for the SR effects.
GSS
harald
A stiff thing made up of atoms (such as earth, wood, steel or
concrete).
[..]
Sure we can - we can set t=0 whenever we want, and also choose our
time standard.
> > Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
> > > something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
> > > choosing its title.
>
> > Perhaps - but it looked as if he was still trying to understand the
> > basics.
>
> (Some final comments)
> I appreciate a lot this new contact with you. If I remember well, in
> the last one (how many years ago?) you said that my Hierarchical
> Inertial Frame (HIS) concept was a mix of different theories,
> including the Newtonian one. I continue thinking that 1905 Einstein
> discovered an absolute (and total, owed to ALL fields that can be
> present) potential energy measured by a variable rest mass (depending
> on position). Well, this is not the adequate place to talk about all
> these things. In reality, I address them now in order to be able to
> introduce a possible “absolute time”, the principal topic in this
> thread.
> What if we consider a sequence of real inertial frames, each one with
> a body set that includes de previous one?(…Earth, Solar System, Galaxy,
> …). How far can we run in that hierarchy of HIS?
One can choose any inertial reference system that one likes and link
that to others. If you want to set or define (free to choose!)
"absolute time" and "space", then one uses the same time and space
coordinates everywhere (such as astronautes do) and one has to correct
for the assigned speed in experiments. You may thus do that for
"hierarchies" or other things of your liking. Note that the Earth's
and solar "frames" are only approximately "inertial" in the SRT sense,
which shows up in for example stellar aberration.
> If we have a finite
> number of bodies in our Universe, the sequence is finite and we would
> have all the right to denote as “absolute time” the one corresponding
> to the highest hierarchy last HIS. And if our Universe has infinite
> number of bodies, in all ways we can talk at least about an “absolute
> time” as a limit.
It's always possible to conventionally assign an "absolute time"
standard, just as we already have a "universal time" standard.
Cheers,
Harald
Inertial
> On Mar 18, 8:49 pm, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 3:04 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> ....
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the elaboration. But more precisely: e-synched
>>>>>>>> "perfect",
>>>>>>>> "stationary" clocks remain in sync (if at the same gravitational
>>>>>>>> potential). Now, let's hope that the OP will understand this. :)
>> .....
>>> Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
>>> something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
>>> choosing its title.
>>
>> Perhaps - but it looked as if he was still trying to understand the
>> basics.
>>
>> Harald
>
> Maybe yes, I am still trying to understand the intricacies of clock
> synchronization under SR regime.
Its not that hard
> Let us consider two identical precision atomic clocks, positioned at
> points A and B, separated by a distance of about 30 km along east-
> west direction, on the surface of earth.
As you are talking SR, you must be assuming that the surface of the earth is
an inertial frame (so we'll ignore it rotating, or orbitting, and ignore
gravity).
> Assume the two clocks A and B
> are mutually synchronized through Einstein convention such that the
> time taken, T_ab, by a laser pulse to propagate from A to B (as
> measured from the clock readings of B and A) is the same as the time
> taken, T_ba, by a laser pulse to propagate from B to A.
Which is, of course, obviously true.
> That means,
> T_ab - T_ba = 0 which indicates e-synchronization of the two clocks.
Only if that is what the clocks show. The fact light takes the same time to
travel the same distance at the same speed doesn't make the clocks
synchronized.
> In your opinion, will this synchronization remain valid at least for a
> 24 hour period? That is, if we take to and fro signal propagation time
> readings at hourly intervals, will all readings show,
> T_ab - T_ba = 0
It will be valid forever, if they remain at rest in the inertial frame.
> Perhaps you may like to call this mutual synchronization of clocks A
> and B as the 'local clock synchronization' valid in the local or lab
> frame of the two clocks.
If you want to.
> Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two
> atomic clocks A and B in the ECI or the GCRF frame. How exactly will
> it be different from the local clock synchronization in practical
> terms?
The clocks would have to be at rest in those frames.
If not, then you can of course have a whole series of appropriate clocks
that ARE at rest in the frame you want (so A and B will be comoving past
those clocks), and chose a time on those clocks (say 12:00), and whichever
rest clocks A and B are adjacent to when those rest get to 12:00, copy that
time to A and B. Then A and B will be in sync in that frame, and show the
same time in that frame. But they won't be measured as ticking at the
correct rate, so they will get more and more out of synch with other rest
clocks they pass.
> Since the two clocks under consideration are simultaneously known to
> be co-moving in the solar system at about 30 km/s, you may kindly
> explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two atomic
> clocks A and B in the solar system BCRF frame.
The clocks would have to be at rest in that frame. (Or see above)
> How exactly will it be
> different from the local clock synchronization in practical terms?
No different at all. But the same clocks are not going to be both at rest
in more than one (non-eqivalent) inertial frame.
> Going one step still further,the two clocks under consideration are
> simultaneously known to be co-moving in the Galactic reference frame
> at about 200 km/s. Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization
> of the same two atomic clocks A and B in the Galactic reference frame.
The clocks would have to be at rest in that frame. (Or see above)
> How exactly will it be different from the local clock synchronization
> in practical terms?
No different at all. But the same clocks are not going to be both at rest
in more than one (non-eqivalent) inertial frame.
> For the sake of simplicity of discussions, you may completely neglect
> the gravitational effects on clock synchronization and only account
> for the SR effects.
Good .. this is all very trivial.
Sue...
> On Mar 18, 8:49 pm, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:04 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> ....
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the elaboration. But more precisely: e-synched "perfect",
> >>>>>>> "stationary" clocks remain in sync (if at the same gravitational
> >>>>>>> potential). Now, let's hope that the OP will understand this. :)
> > .....
> >> Of course, this time is not an “absolute” one, but maybe
> >> something similar to it was in the mind of the OP of this thread when
> >> choosing its title.
>
> > Perhaps - but it looked as if he was still trying to understand the
> > basics.
>
> > Harald
>
> Maybe yes, I am still trying to understand the intricacies of clock
> synchronization under SR regime.
>
> Let us consider two identical precision atomic clocks, positioned at
> points A and B, separated by a distance of about 30 km along east-
> west direction, on the surface of earth. Assume the two clocks A and B
> are mutually synchronized through Einstein convention such that the
> time taken, T_ab, by a laser pulse to propagate from A to B (as
> measured from the clock readings of B and A) is the same as the time
> taken, T_ba, by a laser pulse to propagate from B to A. That means,
> T_ab - T_ba = 0 which indicates e-synchronization of the two clocks.
Physical light paths are specifically excluded from
the convention and no clock mechanisms are described.
The basis is stipulations and conclusions of
mathematicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
What we can test physically is this:
<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
an imaginary magnitude
sqrt(-1)
ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as
the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
That is just a formal way of stating that physical
phenomena is independent of the coordinate system
used to describe it.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
See also:
"Tensors"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node111.html
Sue...
[...]
>
> GSS
va...@icmf.inf.cu
interpretation about what is the “time” defined by 1905 Einstein. Let
us take two very well-known real inertial systems, the ECI and the
Solar System (SS). Let me ask you a very crucial question. Can be two
GPS clocks (for example one in a satellite and another in the Earth’s
surface) e-synchronized with respect to the ECI and at the same time
also e-synchronized with respect to the SS?
The essential difference between the (1905 Einstein) times of two
different inertial systems has no relation at all with the totally
arbitrary selection of initial instants and time standard units in
both systems.
I prefer to wait for your answer to my previous question before
comment your last one.
> > If we have a finite
> > number of bodies in our Universe, the sequence is finite and we would
> > have all the right to denote as “absolute time” the one corresponding
> > to the highest hierarchy last HIS. And if our Universe has infinite
> > number of bodies, in all ways we can talk at least about an “absolute
> > time” as a limit.
>
> It's always possible to conventionally assign an "absolute time"
> standard, just as we already have a "universal time" standard.
>
Repeating my previous comment.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> Cheers,
GSS
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
.....
>
>> Let us consider two identical precision atomic clocks, positioned at
>> points A and B, separated by a distance of about 30 km along east-
>> west direction, on the surface of earth.
>
> As you are talking SR, you must be assuming that the surface of the earth is
> an inertial frame (so we'll ignore it rotating, or orbitting, and ignore
> gravity).
>
>> Assume the two clocks A and B
>> are mutually synchronized through Einstein convention such that the
>> time taken, T_ab, by a laser pulse to propagate from A to B (as
>> measured from the clock readings of B and A) is the same as the time
>> taken, T_ba, by a laser pulse to propagate from B to A.
>
> Which is, of course, obviously true.
>
>> That means,
>> T_ab - T_ba = 0 which indicates e-synchronization of the two clocks.
>
> Only if that is what the clocks show. The fact light takes the same time to
> travel the same distance at the same speed doesn't make the clocks
> synchronized.
>
>> In your opinion, will this synchronization remain valid at least for a
>> 24 hour period? That is, if we take to and fro signal propagation time
>> readings at hourly intervals, will all readings show,
>> T_ab - T_ba = 0
>
> It will be valid forever, if they remain at rest in the inertial frame.
>
Will it still be valid for ever, if they remain at rest only in the
local or lab frame fixed on the surface of earth? What do you think is
the effect of earth rotation on the mutual e-synchronization of two
clocks in the lab frame?
>> Perhaps you may like to call this mutual synchronization of clocks A
>> and B as the 'local clock synchronization' valid in the local or lab
>> frame of the two clocks.
>
> If you want to.
>
>> Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two
>> atomic clocks A and B in the ECI or the GCRF frame. How exactly will
>> it be different from the local clock synchronization in practical
>> terms?
>
> The clocks would have to be at rest in those frames.
>
> If not, then you can of course have a whole series of appropriate clocks
> that ARE at rest in the frame you want (so A and B will be comoving past
> those clocks), and chose a time on those clocks (say 12:00), and whichever
> rest clocks A and B are adjacent to when those rest get to 12:00, copy that
> time to A and B. Then A and B will be in sync in that frame, and show the
> same time in that frame. But they won't be measured as ticking at the
> correct rate, so they will get more and more out of synch with other rest
> clocks they pass.
I don't think you really mean what you write.
Do you seriously think there are some atomic clocks that are actually
at rest in the ECI or BCRF frames? Or can you ever make any atomic
clock ever at rest in the ECI or BCRF frames?
>
>> Since the two clocks under consideration are simultaneously known to
>> be co-moving in the solar system at about 30 km/s, you may kindly
>> explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two atomic
>> clocks A and B in the solar system BCRF frame.
>
> The clocks would have to be at rest in that frame. (Or see above)
>
But how?
>> How exactly will it be
>> different from the local clock synchronization in practical terms?
>
> No different at all. But the same clocks are not going to be both at rest
> in more than one (non-eqivalent) inertial frame.
>
>> Going one step still further,the two clocks under consideration are
>> simultaneously known to be co-moving in the Galactic reference frame
>> at about 200 km/s. Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization
>> of the same two atomic clocks A and B in the Galactic reference frame.
>
> The clocks would have to be at rest in that frame. (Or see above)
>
What I make out from your response is that two clocks A and B
considered above, can be e-synchronized in ECI or BCRf or Galactic
reference frames only if these clocks can be brought to rest in these
frames. Since it is practically impossible to bring the two clocks (at
rest on the surface of earth) to rest in ECI or BCRF or Galactic
reference frames, it implies that it is practically impossible to
mutually e-synchronize the two clocks in any of these inertial
reference frames. That means two atomic clocks A and B can be mutually
e-synchronized only in their local or lab frame and none else. All
talk of e-synchronizing two or more atomic clocks in different
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, is just
hypothetical day dreaming or gedanken.
Do other relativity experts agree?
GSS
Inertial
I was explicitly ignoring such effects and treating the frame as inertial.
But as one assumes both clocks undergo the same velocity profiles, they
should remain in sync
>
>>> Perhaps you may like to call this mutual synchronization of clocks A
>>> and B as the 'local clock synchronization' valid in the local or lab
>>> frame of the two clocks.
>>
>> If you want to.
>>
>>> Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two
>>> atomic clocks A and B in the ECI or the GCRF frame. How exactly will
>>> it be different from the local clock synchronization in practical
>>> terms?
>>
>> The clocks would have to be at rest in those frames.
>>
>> If not, then you can of course have a whole series of appropriate clocks
>> that ARE at rest in the frame you want (so A and B will be comoving past
>> those clocks), and chose a time on those clocks (say 12:00), and
>> whichever
>> rest clocks A and B are adjacent to when those rest get to 12:00, copy
>> that
>> time to A and B. Then A and B will be in sync in that frame, and show
>> the
>> same time in that frame. But they won't be measured as ticking at the
>> correct rate, so they will get more and more out of synch with other rest
>> clocks they pass.
>
> I don't think you really mean what you write.
Yes I do
> Do you seriously think there are some atomic clocks that are actually
> at rest in the ECI or BCRF frames?
I don't know the locations and movements of all atomic clocks.
> Or can you ever make any atomic
> clock ever at rest in the ECI or BCRF frames?
Of course you can
>>> Since the two clocks under consideration are simultaneously known to
>>> be co-moving in the solar system at about 30 km/s, you may kindly
>>> explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two atomic
>>> clocks A and B in the solar system BCRF frame.
>>
>> The clocks would have to be at rest in that frame. (Or see above)
>>
> But how?
By having a zero velocity in that frame .. what a stupid question
>>> How exactly will it be
>>> different from the local clock synchronization in practical terms?
>>
>> No different at all. But the same clocks are not going to be both at
>> rest
>> in more than one (non-eqivalent) inertial frame.
>>
>>> Going one step still further,the two clocks under consideration are
>>> simultaneously known to be co-moving in the Galactic reference frame
>>> at about 200 km/s. Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization
>>> of the same two atomic clocks A and B in the Galactic reference frame.
>>
>> The clocks would have to be at rest in that frame. (Or see above)
>>
> What I make out from your response is that two clocks A and B
> considered above, can be e-synchronized in ECI or BCRf or Galactic
> reference frames only if these clocks can be brought to rest in these
> frames.
Only if they ARE at rest in that frame when you sync them.
If you subsequently accelerate them, that will change their ticking rates
> Since it is practically impossible to bring the two clocks (at
> rest on the surface of earth)
Who said they have to be at rest on the surface of the earth?
> to rest in ECI or BCRF or Galactic
> reference frames,
They can't be at rest in those different frames at the same time
> it implies that it is practically impossible to
> mutually e-synchronize the two clocks in any of these inertial
> reference frames.
Unless you calculate what the time should be. But you cannot do it via
e-synch method alone.
> That means two atomic clocks A and B can be mutually
> e-synchronized only in their local or lab frame and none else.
Of course .. synch is frame dependent. Didn't you know that? If they are
in sync in one frame, they are not in sync in another.
ie if you have two clocks (A and B) in sync in one frame pass adjacent to
another two clocks (A' and B') that are in sync in another frame (ignoring
trivial cases like the clocks being colocated etc), then you CANNOT have the
same time shown on both corresponding clocks (ie cannot have A = A' and B =
B')
> All
> talk of e-synchronizing two or more atomic clocks in different
> inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, is just
> hypothetical day dreaming or gedanken.
It is impossible for them to be mutually at sync.
> Do other relativity experts agree?
Of course they would
harald
Perhaps you meant with "unique time", "unique synchronization"? Most
people would call that not "absolute" but "relative" synchronization.
Anyway, I'm not at all interested in debates over words.
[..]
Regards,
Harald
harald
The synchronisation procedure in the ECI "frame" accounts for the
speed of the clocks on the Earth's surface; that's also how GPS works
(commonly called "Sagnac correction"). There is no reason to make any
clocks "rest" in the ECI "frame".
Regards,
Harald
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Particles viibrate as they fall around their wave center.
Mitch Raemsch
GSS
In essence, Sagnac correction accounts for the effect of motion of the
receiver during the transit time of the signal pulse from transmitter
to the receiver. Here the main issue is that if you mutually
synchronize two atomic clocks A and B (separated by distance D) on
earth surface, can the *same* two clocks be mutually synchronized in
the ECI and BCRF frames without first bringing them to *rest* in these
frames? Inertial says you cannot.
If you think these two clocks can be mutually synchronized in the ECI
and/or BCRF frames without bringing them to *rest* in these frames,
kindly explain that synchronization procedure. If you do succeed in
synchronizing these two clocks in ECI and/or BCRF frames (while they
are still at rest in their local or lab frame on the surface of earth)
will their mutual synchronization in their lab frame be broken or
maintained?
GSS
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Waves fall.
Mitch Raemsch
va...@icmf.inf.cu
question. I repeat it:
Can be two GPS clocks (for example one in a satellite and another in
the Earth’s
surface) e-synchronized with respect to the ECI and at the same time
also e-synchronized with respect to the SS?
his first relativity paper (30 June 1905).
As you, I am also not interested at all in any debate about simple
words.
If it helps you to answer the question, my opinion is that it must be
answered with a clear “no”. I want to know if we are in agreement
about this point or not.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> [..]
>
> Regards,
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:c7f6d7b8-bbb7-4a86...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
============================================
If you are not interest in words, why add confusion with "e-synchronized" ?
That's not a word.
Einstein said:
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
He didn't say "e-synchronized".
Can be two Global Positioning System (GPS) clocks (for example one in
a satellite and another in the Earth’s surface)...
The GPS doesn't ever use a clock on the Earth's surface, GPS receivers
don't have atomic clocks or need clocks at all.
However, atomic clocks upload position and time to the satellites and
they are ALL synchronized.
Inertial
news:xGIpn.19115$DF1....@newsfe20.ams2...
So if "GPS doesn't ever use a clock on the Earth's surface" then where are
these "atomic clocks" that "upload position and time to the satellites"?
Tom Roberts
> Let us consider two identical precision atomic clocks, positioned at
> points A and B, separated by a distance of about 30 km along east-
> west direction, on the surface of earth. Assume the two clocks A and B
> are mutually synchronized through Einstein convention such that the
> time taken, T_ab, by a laser pulse to propagate from A to B (as
> measured from the clock readings of B and A) is the same as the time
> taken, T_ba, by a laser pulse to propagate from B to A. That means,
> T_ab - T_ba = 0 which indicates e-synchronization of the two clocks.
OK, that's clear enough. But note there is no inertial frame in which these
clocks are synchronized, and that is usually a prerequisite for calling them
"synchronized". Your measurements and operations are clear, but applying the
word "synchronized" to this is not so clear. In particular, you could repeat
this multiple times, performing this same procedure on pairs of clocks until you
come back to the starting place -- the first and last clocks will NOT be
"synchronized" in this sense.
> In your opinion, will this synchronization remain valid at least for a
> 24 hour period? That is, if we take to and fro signal propagation time
> readings at hourly intervals, will all readings show,
> T_ab - T_ba = 0
Modulo drifts in the individual clocks, yes. In gedankens we invariably use
ideal clocks, so they don't drift, and the answer is an unqualified yes. That's
because in such gedankens we also ignore such tiny things as the variation in
earth's rotational rate (which would turn that into a "no", but the variations
would be far below present technology's resolution).
> Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two
> atomic clocks A and B in the ECI or the GCRF frame. How exactly will
> it be different from the local clock synchronization in practical
> terms?
To do this, one must set the clocks so that they display the time of a
coordinate clock of the ECI that is located where the moving clock is located at
the instant in question. ECI coordinate clocks, of course, are at rest in the
ECI frame, and because the ECI is supposed to be an inertial frame in the sense
of SR (not GR), gravitation does not affect ECI coordinate clocks. This means
that the moving clocks must all be modified so that effects of their motion and
gravitational potential are compensated. The result is that all such moving
clocks are modified and initialized so they always indicate the time that an ECI
coordinate clock would indicate at the moving clock's current location. This is
how the GPS was set up.
I am ignoring tiny corrections, such as due to the gravitation
of sun and moon, variations in earth's density, mountains, etc.;
these are all treated as corrections in the GPS.
> Since the two clocks under consideration are simultaneously known to
> be co-moving in the solar system at about 30 km/s, you may kindly
> explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two atomic
> clocks A and B in the solar system BCRF frame. How exactly will it be
> different from the local clock synchronization in practical terms?
You would have to do the same thing described above, but in the BCRF frame. But
corrections for gravitation would be more serious, as the region covered is
larger and the sun is much more massive than the earth. Astronomers essentially
do this when generating a planetary ephemeris, but they don't achieve nearly the
accuracy of the GPS.
> Going one step still further,the two clocks under consideration are
> simultaneously known to be co-moving in the Galactic reference frame
> at about 200 km/s. Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization
> of the same two atomic clocks A and B in the Galactic reference frame.
> How exactly will it be different from the local clock synchronization
> in practical terms?
Apply the same technique, but in the galactic frame. The difficulties will be
larger still....
> For the sake of simplicity of discussions, you may completely neglect
> the gravitational effects on clock synchronization and only account
> for the SR effects.
That's insufficient. Gravitational effects are much larger than velocity effects
for the GPS satellite clocks.
Tom Roberts
va...@icmf.inf.cu
ago?
I used the expression "e-synchronized" only because some other persons
in this thread use it. Anyway, I put clear that I am referring to 1905
Einstein's synchronization process (in the context of his "time"
definition).
> Can be two Global Positioning System (GPS) clocks (for example one in
> a satellite and another in the Earth’s surface)...
> The GPS doesn't ever use a clock on the Earth's surface, GPS receivers
> don't have atomic clocks or need clocks at all.
> However, atomic clocks upload position and time to the satellites and
> they are ALL synchronized.
those last ones mentioned by you (that are at the Earth's surface).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:290f9863-733d-46e3...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
================================================
Hopefully you've very long maturings since then.
================================================
I used the expression "e-synchronized" only because some other persons
in this thread use it. Anyway, I put clear that I am referring to 1905
Einstein's synchronization process (in the context of his "time"
definition).
================================================
"Synchronized" only means "set to the same time", it has nothing to do
with a clock running fast or slow compared to another or compared to
the daily rotation of the Earth on its own axis, or its yearly revolution
around the Sun along with the Earth. One GPS satellite year is identical
to one Earth year, Einstein was an idiot.
> Can be two Global Positioning System (GPS) clocks (for example one in
> a satellite and another in the Earth’s surface)...
> The GPS doesn't ever use a clock on the Earth's surface, GPS receivers
> don't have atomic clocks or need clocks at all.
> However, atomic clocks upload position and time to the satellites and
> they are ALL synchronized.
Of course that GPS receivers have not atomic clocks, I am refering to
those last ones mentioned by you (that are at the Earth's surface).
================================================
All clocks tick, the count of the ticks for identical clocks is the same
number of ticks each year or they would not be identical, Einstein was
an idiot.
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Einstein.
Anyway, I put clear that I am referring to 1905 Einstein's § 4. Physical
Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and
Moving Clocks found in http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.
Thence we conclude that Einstein was a babbling cretin and a complete
ignoramus who knew nothing of physics or mathematics, and neither does
Van lintel the lentil.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> news:290f9863-733d-46e3...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 mar, 06:39, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:> <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> >news:c7f6d7b8-bbb7-4a86...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20 mar, 07:15, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Thence we conclude that Einstein was a babbling cretin and a complete
> ignoramus who knew nothing of physics or mathematics, and neither does
> Van lintel the lentil.
If we have two identical synchronized clocks (with the same physical
conditions in some real inertial frame), they get out of synchronism
when you alter the physical conditions of one of them (but returning
it to the initial ones in order to compare the time registered by the
clocks in the same initial physical conditions). This is an
experimental fact that you can’t reject as a scientist. Surely you
know the Hafele&Keating experiment and the huge experimental evidence
of today GPS.
I can accept that “synchronized” means "set to the same time", even
knowing that you believe in the existence of a “unique” time. OK, let
us consider that the two clocks are synchronized (by you at your
“unique” time, surely you know how to do it) at an Earth’s pole,
changing later one of them to the equator (of an Earth considered a
perfect sphere, to avoid complications with the gravitational
potential not known yet by 1905 Einstein). After some time we can
return the clock at the equator to the pole to compare with the other,
to see if 1905 Einstein was right or not.
We can change a little the experiment putting first two synchronized
clocks at the equator (needing again your help to put them reading
your “unique” time) and changing later one of them to a pole,
returning it after some time to its original position at the equator.
Which will be the result?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:aa5f00b9-97fc-4a95...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
================================================
No two clocks are ever identical. This is a simple fact that you can’t
reject as a moron.
================================================
Surely you
know the Hafele&Keating experiment and the huge experimental evidence
of today GPS.
=================================================
For more than you ever will, and there is no evidence whatsover of
time dilation. If you hallucinate there is then produce it, don't just
spew your blind faith. Surely you don't have a clue what you are
babbling about.
================================================
I can accept that “synchronized” means "set to the same time", even
knowing that you believe in the existence of a “unique” time.
================================================
I made no claim of a unique time, you fuckin' LIAR, and you know
nothing of the kind.
OK, let
us consider that the two clocks are synchronized (by you at your
“unique” time,
================================================
NOT Ok. I made no claim of a “unique” time, you fuckin' LIAR!
<Lying crap snipped>
Anyway, I put clear that I am referring to 1905 Einstein's § 4. Physical
Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and
Moving Clocks found in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.
which you obviously didn't read, being an ignoramus.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
["Synchronized" only means "set to the same time", it has nothing to
do
with a clock running fast or slow compared to another or compared to
the daily rotation of the Earth on its own axis, or its yearly
revolution
around the Sun along with the Earth. One GPS satellite year is
identical
You are clearly identifying the time that is showing a GPS satellite
clock (ECI time) with the Solar System (SS) time. The ‘year’ is the
time needed for the Earth to make a revolution around the Sun (more
exactly, a revolution of the Earth-Moon centre of mass around the
Solar System centre of mass considered at rest, that is a little out
of the Sun’s surface). The ‘year’ refers to SS space and SS time. In
the ECI inertial system, the Earth’s centre of mass is considered at
rest, no sense at all to refer a “GPS satellite year”. In the ECI
system the Sun doesn’t exist at all (and then not taken into account
when computing its centre of mass, try to describe the Sun’s
trajectory in the ECI!). But the ECI system exists as part of the SS,
with the Earth moving at about 30Km/s in it. Believe it or not, clocks
synchronized in the ECI are ticking a little slower than clocks
synchronized in the SS. But I do not denote this as any “time
dilation” at all. Simply, speed alters a clock's time rate, as
gravitational potential, temperature or any other physical condition
can do. If we want to have a moving clock showing the time of a
similar clock at rest in the passing point, we can adjust it to do
that (as it is done with moving GPS clocks in the ECI, also adjusted
for changes in the gravitational potential and other physical
conditions).
By the way, it is the Earth’s centre of mass what is moving around the
SS one, not at the inverse, Galileo was right!
You write:
[All clocks tick, the count of the ticks for identical clocks is the
same
number of ticks each year or they would not be identical, Einstein was
an idiot.]
And now you write:
[No two clocks are ever identical. This is a simple fact that you
can’t
reject as a moron.]
If you can refer to “identical clocks”, why I can’t do the same?
> OK, let
> us consider that the two clocks are synchronized (by you at your
> “unique” time,
> ================================================
> NOT Ok. I made no claim of a “unique” time, you fuckin' LIAR!
>
Can you answer the question I made to Harald? I repeat it:
“Can be two GPS clocks (for example one in a satellite and another in
the Earth’s surface) e-synchronized with respect to the ECI and at the
same time
also e-synchronized with respect to the SS?” (Consider “e-
synchronized” equal to “showing the same time”).
I repeat the answer that I consider the right one: “no”. ECI and SS
times are for me different ones, even if very close (every different
real inertial frame has its own different time and space determined by
their different body sets). And for you?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> <Lying crap snipped>
>
> Anyway, I put clear that I am referring to 1905 Einstein's § 4. Physical
> Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and
> Moving Clocks found in
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.
> which you obviously didn't read, being an ignoramus.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:561ece5e-e056-40e7...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
You write:
"you believe in the existence of a “unique” time"
You lied.
You are clearly identifying the time that is showing a GPS satellite
clock (ECI time) with the Solar System (SS) time.
==============================================
I'm identifying position of the Earth relative to the stars with the
position of the GPS satellite relative to the stars, and since the GPS
satellite is right alongside the Earth they are the same. Therefore they
have the same time unless the GPS satellite leaves the Earth.
Perhaps you don't know what the unit of time called a "year" is
or how to measure one, you are not very intelligent.
The ‘year’ is the
time needed for the Earth to make a revolution around the Sun (more
exactly, a revolution of the Earth-Moon centre of mass around the
Solar System centre of mass considered at rest, that is a little out
of the Sun’s surface). The ‘year’ refers to SS space and SS time. In
the ECI inertial system, the Earth’s centre of mass is considered at
rest, no sense at all to refer a “GPS satellite year”. In the ECI
system the Sun doesn’t exist at all
=================================================
I know you don't believe in a “unique” Sun, but in physics
the lunatic Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato doesn't exist at all.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
synchronization of two GPS clocks in the ECI and at the same time in
the SS? Simply because a “yes” implies to believe in a unique time (a
thing that you are negating), and a “no” implies to believe in 1905
Einstein Relativity (a thing that you are also negating). You are
trapped in an internal contradiction.
> You are clearly identifying the time that is showing a GPS satellite
> clock (ECI time) with the Solar System (SS) time.
> ==============================================
> I'm identifying position of the Earth relative to the stars with the
> position of the GPS satellite relative to the stars, and since the GPS
> satellite is right alongside the Earth they are the same. Therefore they
> have the same time unless the GPS satellite leaves the Earth.
referring to the “fixed” stars? It is no other than the Solar System
(SS) centre of mass one. The ECI is part of that system, describing a
rather complex trajectory in it. Sorry man, the synchronization of the
GPS clocks is with respect to an Earth’s centre of mass inertial
system considered at rest. You can’t have at the same time those
clocks synchronized with respect to the SS. A unique time doesn’t
exist for all real inertial systems. If you want, in principle you can
synchronize the clocks in the SS, but not remaining synchronized in
the ECI.
By the way, are you noting that SS and ECI are NOT equivalent inertial
systems in the Minkovski sense?
> Perhaps you don't know what the unit of time called a "year" is
> or how to measure one, you are not very intelligent.
>
> The ‘year’ is the
> time needed for the Earth to make a revolution around the Sun (more
> exactly, a revolution of the Earth-Moon centre of mass around the
> Solar System centre of mass considered at rest, that is a little out
> of the Sun’s surface). The ‘year’ refers to SS space and SS time. In
> the ECI inertial system, the Earth’s centre of mass is considered at
> rest, no sense at all to refer a “GPS satellite year”. In the ECI
> system the Sun doesn’t exist at all
> =================================================
> I know you don't believe in a “unique” Sun, but in physics
> the lunatic Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato doesn't exist at all.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:43ab25f2-f9bc-4d0e...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I don't answer your question because you accused me of believing in a
“unique”
time and haven't retracted that accusation.
I know YOU DON'T believe in a “unique” Sun, but in physics
the lunatic Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato doesn't exist at all.
What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Rafael Valls
Hidalgo-Gato ?
What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one metre?
What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one second?
What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one time?
Why you don’t answer my question?
va...@icmf.inf.cu
your position about the “unique” time. If you don’t believe in a
“unique” time, we then share a common position about this point,
because I don’t believe in a “unique” time. In my view, time (and also
space) depends on the body set we select to determine a centre of mass
inertial system. I name REAL that type of inertial systems, to
distinguish them from the IMAGINARY ones not considering any body set
at all (as all inertial systems in the Minkowski view). Remember that
I am referring always to 1905 Einstein. The mix of time with space
(without taking into account any body) was made by Minkovski about
1907.
I retracted the accusation you refer. You and me reject a “unique”
time.
> I know YOU DON'T believe in a “unique” Sun, but in physics
> the lunatic Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato doesn't exist at all.
You are wrong about that. I believe in a unique Sun.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Sun?
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Rafael Valls
> Hidalgo-Gato ?
There exist only one for all the real entities.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one metre?
There exist a unique real platinium-iridium rod at Paris.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one second?
There exist a unique second defined for the real Solar System.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one time?
Don’t we share the conviction that doesn’t exist a “unique” time?. If
time is not unique, then there exist more than one time (for me, a
different one for every possible real body set determining a different
centre of mass inertial system).
> Why you don’t answer my question?
I answered all your questions.
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:eebbf174-bfb6-4250...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
Not at all, it is quite ok for me to say what I believe.
In my view I know you don't believe in a unique Sun, I don't
have to prove it.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Sun?
You didn't answer, therefore you do not exist.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Rafael Valls
> Hidalgo-Gato ?
There exist only one for all the real entities.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one metre?
There exist a unique real platinium-iridium rod at Paris.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one second?
There exist a unique second defined for the real Solar System.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one time?
> Don’t we share the conviction that doesn’t exist a “unique” time?
No, and asking me a question isn't answering my question.
> If time is not unique, then there exist more than one time (for me, a
different one for every possible real body set determining a different
centre of mass inertial system).
> Why you don’t answer my question?
I answered all your questions.
==============================================
You told me what you believe, not what you can prove.
A = Earth
B = Sun
C = GPS satellite
Einstein said:
1. If the clock at A(Earth) synchronizes with the clock at B(Sun), the clock
at
B (Sun) synchronizes with the clock at A(Earth).
2. If the clock at Earth synchronizes with the clock at Sun and also with
the
clock at GPS satellite, the clocks at Sun and GPS satellite also synchronize
with each other.
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato said:
If time is not unique, then there exist more than one time.
Let there be two times as Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato says.
time 1: The clock at Sun 1 has the same time as the clock at Earth.
time 2: The clock at Sun 2 has the same time as the clock at GPS satellite.
The clock at GPS satellite (time 1) has the different time as the
clock at Earth (time 2).
If time is not unique, then there exist more than one Sun.
In my view I know you don't believe in a unique Sun; I don't need
to prove it, you've demonstrated it yourself.
What make you dream that can exist more than one Sun?
What make you dream that can exist more than one Rafael Valls
Hidalgo-Gato ?
You didn't answer, therefore you do not exist.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> > What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Sun?
>
> You didn't answer, therefore you do not exist.
>
single generic answer for two consecutive of your questions: There
exist only one for all the real entities.
> > What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Rafael Valls
> > Hidalgo-Gato ?
>
> There exist only one for all the real entities.> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one metre?
>
> There exist a unique real platinium-iridium rod at Paris.> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one second?
>
> There exist a unique second defined for the real Solar System.
>
> > What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one time?
> > Don’t we share the conviction that doesn’t exist a “unique” time?
>
> No, and asking me a question isn't answering my question.
>
in Newton’s view), but a collective property for every well-determined
body set.
Once the aether is considered superfluous by 1905 Einstein, only the
bodies themselves can determine their proper "time" and "space".
> > If time is not unique, then there exist more than one time (for me, a
>
> different one for every possible real body set determining a different
> centre of mass inertial system).> Why you don’t answer my question?
>
> I answered all your questions.
> ==============================================
> You told me what you believe, not what you can prove.
>
> A = Earth
> B = Sun
> C = GPS satellite
> Einstein said:
>
> 1. If the clock at A(Earth) synchronizes with the clock at B(Sun), the clock
> at
> B (Sun) synchronizes with the clock at A(Earth).
> 2. If the clock at Earth synchronizes with the clock at Sun and also with
> the
> clock at GPS satellite, the clocks at Sun and GPS satellite also synchronize
> with each other.
>
paper on Relativity) corresponds to paragraph 1 with title “Definition
of Simultaneity”. It begins with the following text (Einstein’s text
always between [ ]):
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish it from others which will be
introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system”.
If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the
employment of rigid standards of measurements and the method of
Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.]
Einstein continues considering the motion of a material point in that
system giving the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time,
addressing then his very detailed definition of “time”. He introduces
here 3 different space points denoted by A, B and C, with a similar
clock at each of these points. This is the context where we find the
following text:
[We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
following relations are universally valid:
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronizes with each
other. ]
You identify A with the Earth, B with the Sun and C with a GPS
satellite. Yes, you can synchronize (in principle) 3 clocks in those
places, but showing only Solar System time. You must take into account
that yours A, B and C are not 3 space points belonging to a single
inertial system (the “stationary system” in Einstein’s description).
The Earth is moving with respect to a Sun considered at rest, and the
GPS satellite is moving with respect to an Earth considered at rest.
We can consider also the GPS satellite at rest with respect to itself,
having then involved 3 different REAL inertial systems with 3
different centre of mass (and then 3 different “rests”). Notice that
you can synchronize the 3 clocks only at the Solar System. If you
treat to synchronize them at the ECI (Earth), you need a Sun orbiting
the Earth! Even worse for the third case, with an Earth orbiting the
satellite at rest and the Sun making an incredible dance!
I beg you to put special attention to the following point: the REAL
inertial systems that I am talking about are NOT the IMAGINARY ones of
the 1907 Minkovski view.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:1d262440-af13-405a...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
In my view I know you don't believe in a unique Sun.
> > What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Sun?
>
> You didn't answer, therefore you do not exist.
>
I answered all your questions;
=============================================
No, you hallucinate two Suns and two times, and you have not
answered why.
maybe you didn’t notice that I put a
single generic answer for two consecutive of your questions: There
exist only one for all the real entities.
> > What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one Rafael Valls
> > Hidalgo-Gato ?
>
> There exist only one for all the real entities.
=============================================
In my view I know you don't believe in a unique Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one metre?
>
> There exist a unique real platinium-iridium rod at Paris.
=============================================
In my view I know you don't believe in a unique metre.
> What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one second?
>
> There exist a unique second defined for the real Solar System.
=============================================
Ah, so you believe in a unique time but you don't believe in a unique time.
In my view I know you don't believe in a unique Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato,
one Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato believes in a unique time and the other
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato does not believe in a unique time.
> > What make you hallucinate that can exist more than one time?
> > Don’t we share the conviction that doesn’t exist a “unique” time?
>
> No, and asking me a question isn't answering my question.
>
“Time” (and also "space") is not for me an independent real entity (as
in Newton’s view), but a collective property for every well-determined
body set.
Once the aether is considered superfluous by 1905 Einstein, only the
bodies themselves can determine their proper "time" and "space".
==============================================
I don't give a flying fuck what the idiot Einstein said,
one Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato believes in a unique time and the other
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato does not believe in a unique time.
================================================
Bullshit, I have the three times. A time, B time and C time. One
of the three Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes is lying.
You must take into account
that yours A, B and C are not 3 space points belonging to a single
inertial system (the “stationary system” in Einstein’s description).
================================================
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
One of the three Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes is lying.
You don't tell me what I must do, I tell you what you must do.
You must shut the fuck up, because you are a liar.
>The Earth is moving with respect to a Sun considered at rest, and the
> GPS satellite is moving with respect to an Earth considered at rest.
===============================================
Liar, the Sun is moving with respect to Earth considered at rest, and the
GPS satellite is moving with respect to one of the Suns considered at rest.
We can consider also the GPS satellite at rest with respect to itself,
having then involved 3 different REAL inertial systems with 3
different centre of mass
=============================================
This discussion is about unique time, not mass. You must take into account
that you are ranting and you must take into account that you are an idiot.
(and then 3 different “rests”). Notice that
you can synchronize the 3 clocks only at the Solar System. If you
treat to synchronize them at the ECI (Earth), you need a Sun orbiting
the Earth!
================================================
It does, I see it cross the sky every day and I can measure time by it, I'm
"stationary". You must take into account that it's not inertial.
Even worse for the third case, with an Earth orbiting the
satellite at rest and the Sun making an incredible dance!
=================================================
Even better for the third case.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~sdb/Egypt/NightSkies/Images/17-34-polar-sky-adj.jpg
I beg you to put special attention to the following point: the REAL
inertial systems that I am talking about are NOT the IMAGINARY ones of
the 1907 Minkovski view.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
===================================================
You can beg all you want to, you must take into account that no system is
inertial and Einstein never said it was inertial and you don't even know
what
inertial means.
GSS
> GSS wrote:
>> Let us consider two identical precision atomic clocks, positioned at
>> points A and B, separated by a distance of about 30 km along east-
>> west direction, on the surface of earth. Assume the two clocks A and B
>> are mutually synchronized through Einstein convention such that the
>> time taken, T_ab, by a laser pulse to propagate from A to B (as
>> measured from the clock readings of B and A) is the same as the time
>> taken, T_ba, by a laser pulse to propagate from B to A. That means,
>> T_ab - T_ba = 0 which indicates e-synchronization of the two clocks.
>
> OK, that's clear enough. But note there is no inertial frame in which these
> clocks are synchronized, and that is usually a prerequisite for calling them
> "synchronized". Your measurements and operations are clear, but applying the
> word "synchronized" to this is not so clear.
If you cannot apply the word "synchronized" in this case, which other
word, you think, is more appropriate?
At any instant, when TAI time is t1, if each one of the two 'ideal'
clocks A and B show the same time t1, shouldn't we call them
'mutually' synchronized, irrespective of the reference frame in which
we may consider them to be located at that instant? Further, at any
given instant, the two ideal clocks A and B under consideration can be
viewed as 'physically' located in many inertial reference frames like
ECI, BCRF and Galactic reference frame, even though they are not *at
rest* in any of them. Why should the physical state of the two clocks
being 'in synchronization', change when we refer their location to ECI
or BCRF or the Galactic frame? Choice of a reference frame is our
'human' artifact, and this choice must not influence a physical
phenomenon of two clocks being 'in synchronization' or 'not in
synchronization'.
Isn't this awkward situation a consequence of equally awkward second
postulate of SR?
>
>> In your opinion, will this synchronization remain valid at least for a
>> 24 hour period? That is, if we take to and fro signal propagation time
>> readings at hourly intervals, will all readings show,
>> T_ab - T_ba = 0
>
> Modulo drifts in the individual clocks, yes. In gedankens we invariably use
> ideal clocks, so they don't drift, and the answer is an unqualified yes. That's
> because in such gedankens we also ignore such tiny things as the variation in
> earth's rotational rate (which would turn that into a "no", but the variations
> would be far below present technology's resolution).
>
This "unqualified yes" is an important statement. Assume the time
resolution of available atomic clocks is limited to one ns, and that
their locations A and B are at the same gravitational potential. Can
you confirm that the state of mutual synchronization of the two clocks
(represented by T_ab - T_ba = 0) will remain valid for a 24 hour
period, irrespective of the rotational motion of the earth about its
axis? Specifically, I want you to confirm that there will be no
'significant' diurnal variation in the value of (T_ab - T_ba) which
should remain within +/- one ns during the 24 hour testing period.
>> Kindly explain the procedure for e-synchronization of the same two
>> atomic clocks A and B in the ECI or the GCRF frame. How exactly will
>> it be different from the local clock synchronization in practical
>> terms?
>
> To do this, one must set the clocks so that they display the time of a
> coordinate clock of the ECI that is located where the moving clock is located at
> the instant in question. ECI coordinate clocks, of course, are at rest in the
> ECI frame, and because the ECI is supposed to be an inertial frame in the sense
> of SR (not GR), gravitation does not affect ECI coordinate clocks. This means
> that the moving clocks must all be modified so that effects of their motion and
> gravitational potential are compensated. The result is that all such moving
> clocks are modified and initialized so they always indicate the time that an ECI
> coordinate clock would indicate at the moving clock's current location. This is
> how the GPS was set up.
>
Since physically no atomic clock can ever be at *rest* in the ECI
frame, do you mean to imply that in order to synchronize the clocks A
and B (at rest on the earth surface) in the ECI frame, their time
offsets will have to be physically altered or adjusted to suit the
computations of SR?
GSS
PD
>
> If you cannot apply the word "synchronized" in this case, which other
> word, you think, is more appropriate?
>
> At any instant, when TAI time is t1, if each one of the two 'ideal'
> clocks A and B show the same time t1, shouldn't we call them
> 'mutually' synchronized, irrespective of the reference frame in which
> we may consider them to be located at that instant?
You can certainly do that. You can choose a clock to be the master
clock of all clocks and use your definition to declare that all clocks
have been thus synchronized, regardless of reference frame the clock
belongs to.
The problem then becomes that the laws of physics will depend on which
clock is being used. This becomes evident when you time, say, a
chemical clock reaction that is local to the master clock, and the
same chemical clock reaction that is local to a different clock.
Though the two clocks will remain synchronized, the two clocks will
report different times for the local copies of the chemical clock
reaction. And the obvious question would be, which of these is right,
since they are IDENTICAL measurements?
Note this is different than the case of two clocks observing the same
process, since one of them will be in the rest frame of the process
and the other will be in a frame with relative motion to the process.
PD
Dono.
>
> Since physically no atomic clock can ever be at *rest* in the ECI
> frame, do you mean to imply that in order to synchronize the clocks A
> and B (at rest on the earth surface) in the ECI frame, their time
> offsets will have to be physically altered or adjusted to suit the
> computations of SR?
>
No, no adjustment is needed , Dumbfuck
All clocks placed on the geoid tick at the same exact rate.
So, the clocks only need to be placed at the same level (preferably ,
sea level)
And, the whole thing has nothing to do with SR, it is all explained by
elementary GR.
For clocks placed off the geoid, adjustment is needed as mandated by
GR.
Tom Roberts
> On Mar 22, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> note there is no inertial frame in which these
>> clocks are synchronized, and that is usually a prerequisite for calling them
>> "synchronized". Your measurements and operations are clear, but applying the
>> word "synchronized" to this is not so clear.
>
> If you cannot apply the word "synchronized" in this case, which other
> word, you think, is more appropriate?
We apply words in order to simplify the task of referring to common objects and
tasks. This technique has no major or common use, and I see no reason to make up
a special word for it.
> At any instant, when TAI time is t1, if each one of the two 'ideal'
> clocks A and B show the same time t1, shouldn't we call them
> 'mutually' synchronized, irrespective of the reference frame in which
> we may consider them to be located at that instant?
Clock synchronization is INHERENTLY frame dependent. That is, a given pair of
clocks can be synchronized in one AND ONLY one inertial frame; they are not
synchronized in any other inertial frame. Your specific case is different from
this and has no such inertial frame, so it does not meet the usual definition of
"synchronized" as used in modern physics.
> Why should the physical state of the two clocks
> being 'in synchronization', change when we refer their location to ECI
> or BCRF or the Galactic frame?
Because the world we inhabit behaves that way. I cannot help it if you do not
like this fact. Synchronization is not a "physical state", it is merely a human
convention. That is, no natural phenomenon depends on how humans happen to set
the parameters of systems they call clocks.
> Choice of a reference frame is our
> 'human' artifact, and this choice must not influence a physical
> phenomenon of two clocks being 'in synchronization' or 'not in
> synchronization'.
There is no "physical phenomenon" corresponding to clock synchronization. Just
like choice of coordinates (reference frame), selection of synchronization
technique is also an arbitrary human choice, as is the choice of the inertial
frame in which to apply it.
> Isn't this awkward situation a consequence of equally awkward second
> postulate of SR?
Not at all! It is a direct consequence of the way the world works. SR merely
MODELS this, it does not "dictate" or "cause" it. This is physics, and we are
MODELING the world, not "creating" it.
> Since physically no atomic clock can ever be at *rest* in the ECI
> frame,
This is false. A clock at either earth's south or north pole is at rest in the
ECI frame. Such clocks do not actually exist, of course.
> do you mean to imply that in order to synchronize the clocks A
> and B (at rest on the earth surface) in the ECI frame, their time
> offsets will have to be physically altered or adjusted to suit the
> computations of SR?
I mean that in order to be synchronized in the ECI, they must be synchronized in
the ECI. That is, their time offsets must be adjusted so this is true. This is
no different from synchronization in any other inertial frame. The method you
described does NOT do this. Note also that earth's surface is irrelevant, it is
earth's geoid that matters; in most places on land, the surface is well above
the geoid.
Tom Roberts
Sue...
> GSS wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> note there is no inertial frame in which these
> >> clocks are synchronized, and that is usually a prerequisite for calling them
> >> "synchronized". Your measurements and operations are clear, but applying the
> >> word "synchronized" to this is not so clear.
>
> > If you cannot apply the word "synchronized" in this case, which other
> > word, you think, is more appropriate?
>
> We apply words in order to simplify the task of referring to common objects and
> tasks. This technique has no major or common use, and I see no reason to make up
> a special word for it.
>
> > At any instant, when TAI time is t1, if each one of the two 'ideal'
> > clocks A and B show the same time t1, shouldn't we call them
> > 'mutually' synchronized, irrespective of the reference frame in which
> > we may consider them to be located at that instant?
>
> Clock synchronization is INHERENTLY frame dependent. That is, a given pair of
> clocks can be synchronized in one AND ONLY one inertial frame; they are not
> synchronized in any other inertial frame. Your specific case is different from
> this and has no such inertial frame, so it does not meet the usual definition of
> "synchronized" as used in modern physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
>
> > Why should the physical state of the two clocks
> > being 'in synchronization', change when we refer their location to ECI
> > or BCRF or the Galactic frame?
>
> Because the world we inhabit behaves that way. I cannot help it if you do not
> like this fact. Synchronization is not a "physical state", it is merely a human
> convention. That is, no natural phenomenon depends on how humans happen to set
> the parameters of systems they call clocks.
<< * invariance with respect to time translation gives
the well-known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>
> > Choice of a reference frame is our
> > 'human' artifact, and this choice must not influence a physical
> > phenomenon of two clocks being 'in synchronization' or 'not in
> > synchronization'.
>
> There is no "physical phenomenon" corresponding to clock synchronization. Just
> like choice of coordinates (reference frame), selection of synchronization
> technique is also an arbitrary human choice, as is the choice of the inertial
> frame in which to apply it.
>
> > Isn't this awkward situation a consequence of equally awkward second
> > postulate of SR?
>
> Not at all! It is a direct consequence of the way the world works. SR merely
> MODELS this, it does not "dictate" or "cause" it. This is physics, and we are
> MODELING the world, not "creating" it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> > Since physically no atomic clock can ever be at *rest* in the ECI
> > frame,
>
> This is false. A clock at either earth's south or north pole is at rest in the
> ECI frame. Such clocks do not actually exist, of course.
>
> > do you mean to imply that in order to synchronize the clocks A
> > and B (at rest on the earth surface) in the ECI frame, their time
> > offsets will have to be physically altered or adjusted to suit the
> > computations of SR?
>
> I mean that in order to be synchronized in the ECI, they must be synchronized in
> the ECI. That is, their time offsets must be adjusted so this is true. This is
> no different from synchronization in any other inertial frame. The method you
> described does NOT do this. Note also that earth's surface is irrelevant, it is
> earth's geoid that matters; in most places on land, the surface is well above
> the geoid.
Sue...
>
> Tom Roberts
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> news:1d262440-af13-405a...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 mar, 10:33, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:> <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> >news:eebbf174-bfb6-4250...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> > On 23 mar, 18:18, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
>
surface) are synchronized at the same ECI time? If you accept that,
then you have only “two times”, the A time (ECI) and the B time (Sun),
because we have then A time (Earth) equal to C time (GPS satellite).
As the Earth is a Sun’s satellite, we can (in principle) follow a
similar procedure (surely more complex) to the one done to synchronize
all GPS clocks with ECI time, but now synchronizing them with B time
(Solar System time). At the end you have only one time (Solar System
time). But you can’t have at the same time two GPS clocks showing at
the same time ECI time and Solar System time (my original question to
Harald). OK?
> You must take into account
> that yours A, B and C are not 3 space points belonging to a single
> inertial system (the “stationary system” in Einstein’s description).
> ================================================
>
> A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
> University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
> "inertial".
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
>
ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good”,
corresponding to “stationary system” in Einstein’s description as I
clear in my comment.
> One of the three Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes is lying.
> You don't tell me what I must do, I tell you what you must do.
> You must shut the fuck up, because you are a liar.
>
valid arguments. I know that you are frequently insulted by many
persons in this group. This means for me only the lack of solid
arguments of them when discussing with you.
> >The Earth is moving with respect to a Sun considered at rest, and the
> > GPS satellite is moving with respect to an Earth considered at rest.
>
> ===============================================
> Liar, the Sun is moving with respect to Earth considered at rest, and the
> GPS satellite is moving with respect to one of the Suns considered at rest.
>
> We can consider also the GPS satellite at rest with respect to itself,
> having then involved 3 different REAL inertial systems with 3
> different centre of mass
>
> =============================================
> This discussion is about unique time, not mass. You must take into account
> that you are ranting and you must take into account that you are an idiot.
>
Minkovski view. Mass is not only related with energy, but also with
time and space. By the way, I want to know if you accept that rest
mass measures potential energy, a point that I am claiming since many
years in this group.
> (and then 3 different “rests”). Notice that
> you can synchronize the 3 clocks only at the Solar System. If you
> treat to synchronize them at the ECI (Earth), you need a Sun orbiting
> the Earth!
> ================================================
> It does, I see it cross the sky every day and I can measure time by it, I'm
> "stationary". You must take into account that it's not inertial.
>
apply a procedure only valid in “a system of co-ordinates in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good”.
> Even worse for the third case, with an Earth orbiting the
> satellite at rest and the Sun making an incredible dance!
> =================================================
> Even better for the third case.
>
Had anybody calculated the Sun’s trajectory in a frame where a GPS
satellite is considered at rest?
> I beg you to put special attention to the following point: the REAL
> inertial systems that I am talking about are NOT the IMAGINARY ones of
> the 1907 Minkovski view.
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> ===================================================
> You can beg all you want to, you must take into account that no system is
> inertial and Einstein never said it was inertial and you don't even know
> what
> inertial means.
referring to the fact that every inertial system is only
“approximate”? Don’t you consider that the Solar System can have “a
system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:6f4a3873-6824-48c0...@e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Of course I accept it.
Don't you accept that all GPS clocks (in satellites and at the Earth’s
=============================================
If you accept that,
then you have only “two times”, the A time (ECI) and the B time (Sun),
because we have then A time (Earth) equal to C time (GPS satellite).
==============================================
No, we have "three times", the A time (ECI), the B time (Sun) and
the C time (GPS satellite). "Learn" to "count" to "three", you "idiot".
Inertial
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:7002e36e-90de-4611...@h18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
We are discussing SR .. not LET. Try to keep up Sue and keep your
quote-mining and link-mining relevant.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
As you don’t know yet how to manage different REAL inertial systems,
you forget to consider the 3 different body sets corresponding to this
case:
A: Earth and GPS satellites (Sun doesn’t belong to this set)
B: Sun, Earth, all the other planets and GPS satellites
C: A (single) GPS satellite (Earth, Sun and other GPS satellites don’t
belong to this set)
Notice that the C set is part of the A set, and this last part of the
B set (in general, all REAL inertial system form a “hierarchy”. I name
them (since many years) Hierarchical Inertial Systems (HIS).
In our case, the considered GPS satellite belongs to more than one
HIS, permitting us to decide in which HIS we want to synchronize it.
If we choose the ECI HIS (as is done in normal GPS function) we have
then (3-1) only 2 times, the ECI (A time) and the Solar System (B
time). OK?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:8624a8d9-30f0-4983...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
As you have no idea what "inertial" means and can't count to three
there is little point in continuing this discussion. Don't you agree you
are an idiot?
va...@icmf.inf.cu
first relativity paper. Let me repeat one of them. At the beginning of
paragraph 1 we can read:
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it “the
stationary system”.]
This type of system that 1905 Einstein is referring, where the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (specially the first, from
where the “inertial” word is taken), is what it is considered until
today an “inertial system”, according to the great majority of Physics
literature before and after 1905 Einstein until our days. I identify
then Einstein’s “stationary system” with “inertial system”, with the
meaning already stated in 1905 Einstein’s text.
I consider necessary to address now what 1905 Einstein name later
“moving system”. He introduces that expression in paragraphs 2 and 3
when considering a “moving system k” with UNIFORM velocity v with
respect to the “stationary system K” . I emphasize with upper case
letters the word UNIFORM because 1905 Einstein is NOT coherent with
that when applying his results (end of paragraph 4) to a clock at the
Earth’s equator, obviously NOT moving with uniform velocity, but with
a gravitational accelerated one. I developed my Hierarchical Inertial
System (HIS) concept as an effort to put in accord theory and
practice, interpreting 1905 Einstein Relativity with that goal in
mind.
A HIS has a limited scope. Each one can be used only to describe the
movements of the bodies belonging to its associated body set. Sun’s
trajectory can’t be described in the ECI, but ECI (Earth) trajectory
can be described in the Solar System.
Any body belonging to some HIS can be modelled by a low hierarchy HIS
moving in the higher hierarchy HIS (GPS satellite moving in the ECI,
Earth moving in the Solar System).
I expressed already sufficient about what is “inertial” for me. Do you
the same to know what is “inertial” for you.
About the counting of different “times”, remember what “synchronized”
means (showing the SAME time). If you synchronize a GPS satellite
clock with a GPS Earth one (as is done in the GPS), you have the SAME
time in both. We are counting different “times”, no different
“clocks”. What you can't do is synchronize two GPS clocks with respect
to the Earth (ECI system) and claim that they are at the same time
synchronized with respect to the Solar System (my original question
answered with a "no").
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
YBM
Didn't you notice that this has been explained to Parker/Androcles for
*ages*, and that he's never got the point?
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:642dd277-bf45-444e...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
On 26 mar, 06:54, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
> <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> news:8624a8d9-30f0-4983...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 mar, 18:14, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> >news:6f4a3873-6824-48c0...@e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 25 mar, 08:47, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:>
> > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1d262440-af13-405a...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> > > On 24 mar, 10:33, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:>
> > > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:eebbf174-bfb6-4250...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On 23 mar, 18:18, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
>
> > .....................................
>
>
> > > > No, and asking me a question isn't answering my question.
>
> > > in Newton�s view), but a collective property for every well-determined
> > > body set.
> > > Once the aether is considered superfluous by 1905 Einstein, only the
> > > bodies themselves can determine their proper "time" and "space".
> > > ==============================================
> > > I don't give a flying fuck what the idiot Einstein said,
> > > one Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato believes in a unique time and the other
> > > Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato does not believe in a unique time.
>
> > > > > If time is not unique, then there exist more than one time (for
> > > > > me,
> > > > > a
>
> > > > different one for every possible real body set determining a
> > > > different
>
> > > > I answered all your questions.
> > > > ==============================================
> > > > You told me what you believe, not what you can prove.
>
> > > > A = Earth
> > > > B = Sun
> > > > C = GPS satellite
> > > > Einstein said:
>
> > > > 1. If the clock at A(Earth) synchronizes with the clock at B(Sun),
> > > > the
> > > > clock
> > > > at
> > > > B (Sun) synchronizes with the clock at A(Earth).
> > > > 2. If the clock at Earth synchronizes with the clock at Sun and also
> > > > with
> > > > the
> > > > clock at GPS satellite, the clocks at Sun and GPS satellite also
> > > > synchronize
> > > > with each other.
>
> > > paper on Relativity) corresponds to paragraph 1 with title �Definition
> > > of Simultaneity�. It begins with the following text (Einstein�s text
> > > always between [ ]):
>
> > > [Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> > > Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
> > > more precise and to distinguish it from others which will be
> > > If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
> > > ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the
> > > employment of rigid standards of measurements and the method of
> > > Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.]
>
> > > Einstein continues considering the motion of a material point in that
> > > system giving the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time,
> > > here 3 different space points denoted by A, B and C, with a similar
> > > clock at each of these points. This is the context where we find the
> > > following text:
>
> > > [We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
> > > contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
> > > following relations are universally valid:
> > > 1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
> > > synchronizes with the clock at B.
> > > 2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
> > > the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronizes with each
> > > other. ]
>
> > > You identify A with the Earth, B with the Sun and C with a GPS
> > > satellite. Yes, you can synchronize (in principle) 3 clocks in those
> > > places, but showing only Solar System time.
> > > ================================================
> > > Bullshit, I have the three times. A time, B time and C time. One
> > > of the three Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes is lying.
>
> > surface) are synchronized at the same ECI time?
> > =============================================
> > Of course I accept it.
> > surface and the Solar System) are synchronized at the same time?
> > =============================================
>
> > If you accept that,
> > because we have then A time (Earth) equal to C time (GPS satellite).
> > ==============================================
> > No, we have "three times", the A time (ECI), the B time (Sun) and
> > the C time (GPS satellite). "Learn" to "count" to "three", you "idiot".
>
> ==============================================
> As you have no idea what "inertial" means and can't count to three
> there is little point in continuing this discussion. Don't you agree you
> are an idiot?
Why don't you answer my question?
I'll repeat it, you seem to have missed it.
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to three?
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:642dd277-bf45-444e...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
We (you and me) are doing frequently references to 1905 Einstein’s
first relativity paper. Let me repeat one of them. At the beginning of
paragraph 1 we can read:
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it “the
stationary system”.]
This type of system that 1905 Einstein is referring, where the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (specially the first, from
where the “inertial” word is taken), is what it is considered until
today an “inertial system”, according to the great majority of Physics
literature before and after 1905 Einstein until our days. I identify
then Einstein’s “stationary system” with “inertial system”, with the
meaning already stated in 1905 Einstein’s text.
====================================================
In other words you don't know what "inertial" means.
If you used a dictionary you'd find "inertia".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inertia
1 a : a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion
in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force b : an
analogous property of other physical quantities (as electricity)
2 : indisposition to motion, exertion, or change : inertness
NOTE:
" uniform motion in the same straight line "
Now, Einstein writes in § 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in
Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks,
"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in
the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind
the other which has remained at B by 1/2 tv^2/c^2 (up to magnitudes of
fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to
B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow."
"moved in a closed curve with constant velocity" cannot mean "uniform motion
in the same straight line" and neither does it mean "stationary system", nor
is anyone except YOU babbling about "inertial"; and Einstein didn't mean
"inertial" or say "inertial". So shut the fuck up about "inertial"!
=================================================
I consider necessary to address now what 1905 Einstein name later
“moving system”. He introduces that expression in paragraphs 2 and 3
when considering a “moving system k” with UNIFORM velocity v with
respect to the “stationary system K” . I emphasize with upper case
letters the word UNIFORM because 1905 Einstein is NOT coherent
=================================================
Fine, so Einstein was a ranting lunatic like you and believes in two Suns,
one for each "time" that I KNOW you believe in.
Now answer my question.
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Don't you agree you are an idiot that can't count to three: the A time, the
B time and the C time?
<rest of babbling incoherent crap snipped>
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> news:642dd277-bf45-444e...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 mar, 06:54, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> >news:8624a8d9-30f0-4983...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 25 mar, 18:14, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
>
> > > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> > >news:6f4a3873-6824-48c0...@e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On 25 mar, 08:47, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:>
> > > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:1d262440-af13-405a...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On 24 mar, 10:33, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:>
> > > > <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:eebbf174-bfb6-4250...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On 23 mar, 18:18, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote:
>
> > > .....................................
>
>
> > > > > No, and asking me a question isn't answering my question.
>
> > > > in Newton s view), but a collective property for every well-determined
> > > > body set.
> > > > Once the aether is considered superfluous by 1905 Einstein, only the
> > > > bodies themselves can determine their proper "time" and "space".
> > > > ==============================================
> > > > I don't give a flying fuck what the idiot Einstein said,
> > > > one Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato believes in a unique time and the other
> > > > Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato does not believe in a unique time.
>
> > > > > > If time is not unique, then there exist more than one time (for
> > > > > > me,
> > > > > > a
>
> > > > > different one for every possible real body set determining a
> > > > > different
>
> > > > > I answered all your questions.
> > > > > ==============================================
> > > > > You told me what you believe, not what you can prove.
>
> > > > > A = Earth
> > > > > B = Sun
> > > > > C = GPS satellite
> > > > > Einstein said:
>
> > > > > 1. If the clock at A(Earth) synchronizes with the clock at B(Sun),
> > > > > the
> > > > > clock
> > > > > at
> > > > > B (Sun) synchronizes with the clock at A(Earth).
> > > > > 2. If the clock at Earth synchronizes with the clock at Sun and also
> > > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > clock at GPS satellite, the clocks at Sun and GPS satellite also
> > > > > synchronize
> > > > > with each other.
>
> > > > paper on Relativity) corresponds to paragraph 1 with title Definition
> > > > of Simultaneity . It begins with the following text (Einstein s text
> > > > always between [ ]):
>
> > > > [Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> > > > Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
> > > > more precise and to distinguish it from others which will be
> > > > If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
> > > > ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the
> > > > employment of rigid standards of measurements and the method of
> > > > Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.]
>
> > > > Einstein continues considering the motion of a material point in that
> > > > system giving the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time,
> > > > here 3 different space points denoted by A, B and C, with a similar
> > > > clock at each of these points. This is the context where we find the
> > > > following text:
>
> > > > [We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
> > > > contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
> > > > following relations are universally valid:
> > > > 1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
> > > > synchronizes with the clock at B.
> > > > 2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
> > > > the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronizes with each
> > > > other. ]
>
> > > > You identify A with the Earth, B with the Sun and C with a GPS
> > > > satellite. Yes, you can synchronize (in principle) 3 clocks in those
> > > > places, but showing only Solar System time.
> > > > ================================================
> > > > Bullshit, I have the three times. A time, B time and C time. One
> > > > of the three Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gatoes is lying.
>
> > > surface) are synchronized at the same ECI time?
> > > =============================================
> > > Of course I accept it.
> > > surface and the Solar System) are synchronized at the same time?
> > > =============================================
>
> > > If you accept that,
> > > because we have then A time (Earth) equal to C time (GPS satellite).
> > > ==============================================
> > > No, we have "three times", the A time (ECI), the B time (Sun) and
> > > the C time (GPS satellite). "Learn" to "count" to "three", you "idiot".
>
> > ==============================================
> > As you have no idea what "inertial" means and can't count to three
> > there is little point in continuing this discussion. Don't you agree you
> > are an idiot?
>
> Why don't you answer my question?
> I'll repeat it, you seem to have missed it.
>
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
You seem to have missed my answer. The relevant part to the count of
different "times" is the following:
"About the counting of different “times”, remember what “synchronized”
means (showing the SAME time). If you synchronize a GPS satellite
clock with a GPS Earth one (as is done in the GPS), you have the SAME
time in both. We are counting different “times”, no different
“clocks”. What you can't do is synchronize two GPS clocks with respect
to the Earth (ECI system) and claim that they are at the same time
synchronized with respect to the Solar System (my original question
answered with a "no")."
As you see, you count 3 because you are counting as different times
what shows the GPS satellite clock and the GPS Earth clock. They are
synchronized, showing the same time. We are counting differewnt
"times", no different "clocks". OK?
I repeat here the first (a little long) part of my answer:
We (you and me) are doing frequently references to 1905 Einstein’s
first relativity paper. Let me repeat one of them. At the beginning of
paragraph 1 we can read:
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it “the
stationary system”.]
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:5a73763c-6b2e-4b2d...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
===================================================
You
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
failed
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
to
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
answer
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
my
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
question
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
again.
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Don't
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
you
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
agree
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
you
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
are
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
an
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
idiot
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
who
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
can't
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
count
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
to
Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita -
three?
va...@icmf.inf.cu
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
If there exist only two different "times", the right count is 2, not
3. My counting is right, you are the one counting 3 differet "times"
that do not exist. I repeat it again, the equal "time" of two
synchronized clocks counts for 1, not for 2. We are counting different
"times", not different "clocks".
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
<va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:848a0a0b-a64a-4f78...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
Why don't you answer my question?
If there exist only one Solar System the right count is "unique", not two
different "times".
Don't you agree you are an idiot who can't count to one?
GSS
>> At any instant, when TAI time is t1, if each one of the two 'ideal'
>> clocks A and B show the same time t1, shouldn't we call them
>> 'mutually' synchronized, irrespective of the reference frame in which
>> we may consider them to be located at that instant?
>
> Clock synchronization is INHERENTLY frame dependent. That is, a given pair of
> clocks can be synchronized in one AND ONLY one inertial frame; they are not
> synchronized in any other inertial frame.
Agreed that a given pair of precision atomic clocks A and B (separated
by constant distance S) can be synchronized in ONE AND ONLY ONE
inertial reference frame. But is there any restriction on the choice
of THAT inertial reference frame? Specifically, can we practically
(not through gedankens) synchronize two clocks A and B in an inertial
reference frame in which they are known to be in uniform MOTION (and
not at rest)?
Let us consider four identical precision atomic clocks A,B, and C,D,
located on earth geoid such that A and C are positioned side by side
while B and D are also positioned side by side as shown below.
A..............................................B
<-----------------S---------------------------->
C..............................................D
Let us set their 'initial times' or their timing offsets by using the
GPS service such that when the GPS time is t1 (UTC), all of the four
clocks A, B, C and D read t1 (within the limits of timing resolution
as available with current cutting-edge technology). Now, using the
term 'synchronized' as approved in 'SR' standards, can you say that
the clock pairs (A,B), (C,D), (A,C), and (B,D) are mutually
*synchronized* in ECI frame, even though these clocks are not at rest
in ECI and are moving with non-uniform velocity in the ECI frame?
Let us now consider 'the' pair of clocks C and D as 'in motion' in
BCRF. Without using any gedanken, kindly explain how will you mutually
synchronize the clocks C and D in BCRF in practical terms? Will you
physically alter the timing offsets of the clocks C and/or D to
*match* with the computed requirements of SR? If you do manage to
practically 'synchronize' the clocks C and D in BCRF, obviously their
synchronization with clocks A and B will get broken. Then we should be
able to say that the clocks A and B are mutually synchronized in ECI
frame while the clocks C and D are mutually synchronized in BCRF.
You are requested to kindly clarify if there is any practical method
of *checking* or verifying that clocks A and B are indeed mutually
synchronized in *ECI reference frame* and the clocks C and D are
indeed mutually synchronized in *BCRF*. Will this practical method of
*checking* the mutual synchronization of these clock pairs be frame
dependent or common for both pairs?
GSS
>
>> Why should the physical state of the two clocks
>> being 'in synchronization', change when we refer their location to ECI
>> or BCRF or the Galactic frame?
>
> Because the world we inhabit behaves that way. I cannot help it if you do not
> like this fact. Synchronization is not a "physical state", it is merely a human
> convention. That is, no natural phenomenon depends on how humans happen to set
> the parameters of systems they call clocks.
>
>> Choice of a reference frame is our
>> 'human' artifact, and this choice must not influence a physical
>> phenomenon of two clocks being 'in synchronization' or 'not in
>> synchronization'.
>
> There is no "physical phenomenon" corresponding to clock synchronization. Just
> like choice of coordinates (reference frame), selection of synchronization
> technique is also an arbitrary human choice, as is the choice of the inertial
> frame in which to apply it.
.....
Paul B. Andersen
Yes. Clocks showing UTC (or GPS-time which is the same but for
a known offset) are synchronized in the non rotating ECI-frame.
That means that they are all simultaneously showing the same time
_in the non rotating ECI-frame_.
Be however aware that the ECI-frame - Earth Centred Inertial frame
is a misnomer in this context. It is no inertial frame because
space-time is curved, and the curvature is essential. So you cannot
use Einstein's synchronization method to define simultaneity
(except for between clocks on the same gravitational potential).
You could say that simultaneity is defined by the Schwarzschild
time coordinate. Since clocks on the geoid, using the SI definition
of a second, are running slow compared to Schwarzschild time
by a factor of (1.0 - 6.9692842E-10), UTC and GPS-time is defined
such that simultaneity is defined (at least in effect) by
the Schwarzschild time coordinate, but all clocks should run
slow by the factor above relative to Schwarzschild time.
> Let us now consider 'the' pair of clocks C and D as 'in motion' in
> BCRF. Without using any gedanken, kindly explain how will you mutually
> synchronize the clocks C and D in BCRF in practical terms?
The same way as clocks on the geoid are synced to the UTC/GPS,
that is by compensating for what is called the 'Sagnac effect.'
Basically this is to use the difference between the speed of light
in the 'reference frame' and the speed of the clocks in same.
That is the same as considering the speed of light to be
c +/- v in the 'ground frame', where v is the speed of the clocks
in the 'reference frame'.
The speed of the Earth in the BCRF is ~ 3E4m/s. You would of course
have to consider Earth's rotation, the relative position of
the clocks compared to their velocity in the BCRF etc.
But it could be done.
Due to the rotation of the Earth the clocks wouldn't stay in
sync in the BCFR for long, though.
> Will you
> physically alter the timing offsets of the clocks C and/or D to
> *match* with the computed requirements of SR? If you do manage to
> practically 'synchronize' the clocks C and D in BCRF, obviously their
> synchronization with clocks A and B will get broken. Then we should be
> able to say that the clocks A and B are mutually synchronized in ECI
> frame while the clocks C and D are mutually synchronized in BCRF.
Right.
>
> You are requested to kindly clarify if there is any practical method
> of *checking* or verifying that clocks A and B are indeed mutually
> synchronized in *ECI reference frame*
This 'checking' is made on a more or less continuously basis.
Look up TAI-time, and how TAI clocks are kept in sync.
> and the clocks C and D are
> indeed mutually synchronized in *BCRF*. Will this practical method of
> *checking* the mutual synchronization of these clock pairs be frame
> dependent or common for both pairs?
Much harder. What would you consider to be a valid 'check'?
--
Paul