GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
"In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
(Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
Tom Van Flandern).
Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
those effects are straightforwardly explained by
1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
gain potential energy), and
2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
altitude.
Obviously, such effects are not additive
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148478769.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
>
> "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
> However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
> a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
> pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
> in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
> all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
>
> (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> Tom Van Flandern).
One imbecile quoting another one:
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/face443x443_6.2.00.mov
Exercise for Marcel:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf
Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he
doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity. Since
we have explained all this to you many times and in great detail,
surely you can pinpoint where the rest of the world sees that he
goes down? I bet you're too much of a coward to even give it
a try.
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148478769.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
> >
> > "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> > and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
> > However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
> > clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> > and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
> > a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
> > pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
> > in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
> > all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> > corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> > the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
> >
> > (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> > What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> > Tom Van Flandern).
>
> One imbecile quoting another one:
> http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
> http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp
> http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/face443x443_6.2.00.mov
You are the imbecile, using irrelevant arguments. Anybody can believe
that the Martians
had an advanced civilisation, and nevertheless have strong arguments
against Einsteinian
relativity. Nobody can deny that "in the GPS, all atomic clocks in all
reference frames (in orbit
and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized."
Explain instead why this doesn't contradict the conclusions of H&K and
Einsteinian
relativity in particular !
>
> Exercise for Marcel:
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf
> Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he
> doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity. Since
> we have explained all this to you many times and in great detail,
> surely you can pinpoint where the rest of the world sees that he
> goes down? I bet you're too much of a coward to even give it
> a try.
Clearly, *you* have no idea about the stupid inferences one can get
from Einsteinian relativity. You are behaving like a stupid parrot.
Hopefully, you are not representative of this NG.
Marcel Luttgens
>
> Dirk Vdm
dead_paul
Having spent a good few months googling round the net examining anything
related to Einstens SR paper I have come to the conclusion that SR as
Einstein thought it was is defunct, it has been amended to account for
the lack of relativity of simultaneity and for the sagnac result, probably
some more things as well for all I know but all that amounts to a
sophistry. Piles of math upon math, like the inverted pyramid aka the BB.
SR is tosh and they know it. It's propped uplike the big bang is propped
up. GR follows SR into the dustbin.
Google Einstein deconstructed (pdf) - lots of interesting analysis there.
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148480858.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148478769.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > Exercise for Marcel:
> > http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf
> > Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he
> > doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity. Since
> > we have explained all this to you many times and in great detail,
> > surely you can pinpoint where the rest of the world sees that he
> > goes down? I bet you're too much of a coward to even give it
> > a try.
>
> Clearly, *you* have no idea about the stupid inferences one can get
> from Einsteinian relativity. You are behaving like a stupid parrot.
> Hopefully, you are not representative of this NG.
Of course I am not "representative of this NG". You are.
Didn't you know?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LutLog.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ApplyDerivation.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlainlyWrong.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Indulging.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LuttgensComment.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrackpotAccept.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TrueCrackpots.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MuchSimpler.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeCrap.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoronLikeMe.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LuttRel.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidLie.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyWrong.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedV.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OnlyGalilean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ArmsGrow2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ArmsGrow.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRSymbols.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CorrectRelations.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Forget.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRLuttgens.html
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> You are the imbecile, using irrelevant arguments. Anybody can believe
> that the Martians
> had an advanced civilisation, and nevertheless have strong arguments
> against Einsteinian
> relativity. Nobody can deny that "in the GPS, all atomic clocks in all
> reference frames (in orbit
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized."
> Explain instead why this doesn't contradict the conclusions of H&K and
> Einsteinian
> relativity in particular !
Because there are only two reference frames: Ground and orbit. The
orbit clocks are slowed down so that they no longer keep
good time in their own frame. The amount they are slowed down
comes from a GR calculation.
The fact that they stay synchronized is a validation of GR:
clocks which don't keep good time in their own frame tick at
the earth rate when viewed from the earth frame.
H&K predicted (and observed) that unaltered clocks set in motion
would get out of synch with their earthbound counterparts. The
same prediction was made with GPS, and the same observation
was made. The first GPS satellite had a clock which could
run either unaltered, or altered. When unaltered, it got out of
synch just the way H&K's clocks did. By the predicted amount.
- Randy
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Again and again, wholly irrelevant references!
Discuss instead the subject matter!
Escapist!
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Of course, but the alterations didn't add up, contrarily to what
H&K - those Einsteinian relativity champions- wrongly claimed.
Btw, it is easy to explain (without GR/SR) the alterations, reread
my post.
Marcel Luttgens
>
> - Randy
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Could you give a complete reference?
Thanks,
Marcel Luttgens
The Sorcerer
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148483511.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Again and again, wholly irrelevant references!
| Discuss instead the subject matter!
| Escapist!
|
| Marcel Luttgens
Don't explain it to him. He's a coward. Let him make his own fumbles.
Androcles.
The Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:TNZcg.444161$vL6.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he
| doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity.
First thing about special relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
On one page Dork Van de merde demonstrates that he
doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity.
Since we have explained all this to you many times and in great detail,
surely you can pinpoint where the rest of the world sees that he's right?
I KNOW you're too much of a coward to even give it a try.
I KNOW you are a stupid cunt.
I KNOW you are an imbecile.
I KNOW you are a cretin.
I KNOW you are a moron.
I KNOW you are a psychopath.
I KNOW you are a troll.
I KNOW you don't even know who you are.
YOU know you are the local village idiot, YOU said so youself.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/classic.htm
Androcles Vdm.
Randy Poe
In what sense did they "not add up"? The discrepancy without
the corrections was predicted to be 38 usec/day, and
was observed to be 38 usec/day within about 0.02 usec/day.
That "adds up" pretty well for me.
The clock without the alterations gained 38000 nsec per day,
every day. The clock with the alterations keeps time with
earthbound clocks to within random errors of +-20 nsec
per day. That "adds up" pretty well for me.
> Btw, it is easy to explain (without GR/SR) the alterations, reread
> my post.
As your post had no numbers and no equations, there is
nothing there for me to use to predict perceived clock rate
versus altitude, something I'd need to do to "explain the
alterations".
Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
for GPS altitude?
- Randy
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
And how do you explain that orbit and ground clocks need to be
synchonized *only once* if orbit clocks gain 38 usec *per day*
over the ground clocks ?
>
> > Btw, it is easy to explain (without GR/SR) the alterations, reread
> > my post.
>
> As your post had no numbers and no equations, there is
> nothing there for me to use to predict perceived clock rate
> versus altitude, something I'd need to do to "explain the
> alterations".
>
> Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
> altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
> for GPS altitude?
Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
Marcel Luttgens
>
> - Randy
Randy Poe
> > The clock without the alterations gained 38000 nsec per day,
> > every day. The clock with the alterations keeps time with
> > earthbound clocks to within random errors of +-20 nsec
> > per day. That "adds up" pretty well for me.
>
> And how do you explain that orbit and ground clocks need to be
> synchonized *only once* if orbit clocks gain 38 usec *per day*
> over the ground clocks ?
The "only once" operation consists in changing the frequency
of the orbiting clocks so that, on earth, they lose 38 usec per day.
Then they are put in orbit and keep time with earth clocks to a
small fraction of a microsecond per day. Only one satellite was
ever orbited without this alteration.
Why do you think that disagrees with the statement that
unaltered clocks gain 38 usec per day? The clocks in orbit
aren't "unaltered".
Why do you keep asking me to "explain" statements that
aren't contradictory?
"Me: Joe runs twice as fast as Bob.
You: Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the fact that Joe
wins races against Bob?"
Are you going to ask me next to "explain" why in one post
I'd say "+- 20 nsec" and in another "a small fraction of
a microsecond"?
> > Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
> > altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
> > for GPS altitude?
>
> Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
Like the cat that ate the cheese, I await with baited breath.
- Randy
bz
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
>
> "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
> However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
> a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
> pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
> in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
> all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
The clocks would NOT remain 'in syncronization with one another' if they
were not regularly syncronized with a [set of] master ground station
clock[s] on a regular basis.
There are MANY effects that must be corrected for that exceed the residual
relativity corrections.
http://waas.stanford.edu/tour.html
http://www.passcal.nmt.edu/software/pdb_manual/apf.html
However, if one were attempting to syncronize the orbiting clocks with each
other rather than with a network of ground clocks, I suspect the task would
be very difficult.
>
> (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> Tom Van Flandern).
>
> Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
Incorrect. They are resyncronized regularly.
> a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
> those effects are straightforwardly explained by
>
> 1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
> potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
> gain potential energy), and
> 2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
> the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
> other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
> is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
> altitude.
>
> Obviously, such effects are not additive
Incorrect. This is only apparently true if one ignores the fact that the
clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Igor
I guess that's what you get for surfing the net for your info rather
than doing it the old fashioned way. The internet has never been a
reliable source for anything scientific (there are some exceptions, but
they're few and very far between). Welcome to the great equalizer and
dumbing down of the world as a whole. If you can't think critically
about where you get your information, you probably deserve whatever you
get.
sal
>
> <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:1148478769.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
[ .. ]
> One imbecile quoting another one:
[ ... ]
I'm sure you're right. No fundamental arguments.
However, as to the H&K experiment, now ... that's the one with the
clocks riding on airliners, right? Have you read the deconstructions
which are available on the web? The analysis I saw, based on the raw
data, which supposedly wasn't released for a long long time after the
experiment was published, was quite interesting, really; enough to
convince me, at least, that the H&K experiment didn't show anything at
all except that the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome happens in physics,
too.
But what, you may ask, is the "Not Enough Rats" syndrome? Here's a
quote from an old post in a different arena, which may drag us
thoroughly off-topic:
| This problem is common in biology and the social sciences but
| unusual in a physics experiment. Here's a sketch of how it happens
| in a biology lab:
|
| A researcher whom we'll call Bob wants to determine the effect of
| diet on the neurotransmitter Poodlecatamousitine. He understands
| statistics well enough to analyze his results with no difficulty,
| but is none the less a little shaky on the use of statistics during
| the experimental design phase (this is all too common, don't say it
| doesn't happen!). But he _guesses_ that 20 rats in each of his two
| experimental groups and 20 more in the control group should produce
| a clear enough result.
|
| But rats are expensive, grant money's tight, and he decides he can
| make do with just 10 rats in each group.
|
| But three of the rats get Rat Flu and check out before the end of
| the experiment, there's an air conditioner failure and two more
| shuffle off this mortal coil, ALF raiders get several more, and one
| of the "male" rats gets pregnant and is disqualified. Two others
| refuse to eat the special diet and are also disqualified.
|
| They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather
| data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine
| levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them
| while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew
| someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment).
| Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out.
| One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're
| disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're
| out, too. And one of the "brain slices" turns out to contain almost
| nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good.
|
| In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B,
| and just three control rats. The "large effect" he hoped to obtain
| turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's
| ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents
| months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway.
If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
handy just now.
> http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
> http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp
> http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/face443x443_6.2.00.mov
>
> Exercise for Marcel:
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf
> Between pages 78 and 83 van Flandern demonstrates that he doesn't
> understand the first thing about special relativity. Since we have
> explained all this to you many times and in great detail, surely you can
> pinpoint where the rest of the world sees that he goes down? I bet
> you're too much of a coward to even give it a try.
>
> Dirk Vdm
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Randy Poe
sal wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:08:51 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> | They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather
> | data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine
> | levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them
> | while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew
> | someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment).
I'm not laughing. I know someone who had to do this with
kittens.
> | Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out.
> | One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're
> | disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're
> | out, too. And one of the "brain slices" turns out to contain almost
> | nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good.
OK, I lied. I'm laughing.
> |
> | In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B,
> | and just three control rats. The "large effect" he hoped to obtain
> | turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's
> | ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents
> | months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway.
In my experience this is fairly typical of the kind of statistical
work one finds in medical journals. When I was in school we
had a joke about medical researchers: "33.333333% of the
rats got better, 33.333333% got worse, and the other rat
escaped."
If you're implying that somehow proves physicists have the
same lax statistical standards... you might want to provide
some evidence other than your (admittedly funny) story.
There was a reason we told that medical-research joke
as a *JOKE*.
> If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
> and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
> handy just now.
Do that.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"sal" <pragm...@nospam.org> wrote in message news:pan.2006.05.24...@nospam.org...
Yes, good story - human nature in action.
The problem with the Luttgens of this world, is that they
use this kind of story as irrefutable proof of the opposite
thesis.
>
> If anyone's interested enough to object to this post I'll dig around
> and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
> handy just now.
I think I have seen some of the comments.
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
The H&K article has been published in Science, vol. 177, 14 July 1972.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
Marcel Luttgens
Randy Poe
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "sal" <pragm...@nospam.org> wrote in message news:pan.2006.05.24...@nospam.org...
> > and see if I can find the link to the H&K article; I don't have it
> > handy just now.
>
> I think I have seen some of the comments.
> Thanks.
There seems to be an anti-relativistic Hafele-Keating article
at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
I tried to make sense of the "Dr. A.G.Kelly" article. It seems to
be a claim of fraud and altered data. But I can't figure out where
the evidence is supposed to be or follow the arguments.
- Randy
Tom Roberts
> GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
No. It merely shows your confusions are false. <shrug>
> "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
Ignoring small corrections for minor effects (e.g. errors in orbits,
planets, moon, ...), yes. But note that the clocks on the ground are not
identical to the clocks on satellites: the engineered difference between
them is precisely the difference predicted by GR (about 38 usec/day,
which is enormous compared to the GPS accuracy). Indeed, even not all
clocks on the ground are identical (due to differences in altitude).
> However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> and rates.
SR is irrelevant. One _must_ use GR for this physical situation. <shrug>
> [...]
> (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> Tom Van Flandern).
That explains it -- you are quoting someone just as clueless as
yourself, from a "journal" that publishes most any nonsense. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> bz wrote:
>> the
>> clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
>
> Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the clocks.
If you're really interested, google is your friend, and I believe they
publish the corrections daily on the web.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
news:i98dg.76540$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> [...]
>> (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
>> What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
>> Tom Van Flandern).
>
> That explains it -- you are quoting someone just as clueless as
> yourself, from a "journal" that publishes most any nonsense. <shrug>
I did a Google search to find what Dr. Van Flandern's position on
Twin's Paradox, and here is what I found.
>>"<GPS&Twins-MRB.htm> A treatise specifically about the famous twins paradox, treated from the unique perspective of a spacecraft with a GPS clock on board. It dispels the notion that "acceleration" plays a role in understanding the paradox and introduces the concept of "time slippage" to explain the physical meaning of one of the two terms in the Lorentz time transformation, the other of which describes the change in clock rates."<<
Dr. Van Flandern is saying GR cannot resolve the Twin's Paradox as
Einstein handwaved it almost one hundred years ago. If you think GR
can resolve the Twin's Paradox, please show me the solution
mathematically from both twin's point of view. You have been saying he
solution exists on the net, but that is not what I find to be the case.
Also, Dr. Van Flandern is in the same camp as you are accepting the
same mathematics of Lorentz Transformation as first derived by Larmor.
You have more crackpot ideology with Dr. Van Flandern than you realize.
va...@cox.net
And after you do that I'll show Randy the dumb mistakes you made
several months ago.
Bruce
>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
> >
> > - Randy
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Tom Roberts wrote:
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > bz wrote:
> >> the
> >> clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
> >
> > Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
>
> Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
> correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the clocks.
Thank you. The claim by Tom Van Flandern "that all satellite
clocks in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and
with
all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
the slight non-circularity of the orbits." is thus confirmed.
Marcel Luttgens
The Sorcerer
Shithead Humpty Roberts doesn't recall correctly.
38 microseconds corresponds to 0.5 inches for a Global POSITIONING System.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/sundials.htm
Because of this:
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
each satellite is constantly being pulled out if its calculated orbit by the
Moon and its position has to updated by ground stations.
Androcles.
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
gain has to be taken into account only once.
>
> > > Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
> > > altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
> > > for GPS altitude?
> >
> > Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
>
> Like the cat that ate the cheese, I await with baited breath.
Here is the cheese, don't get an indigestion !
Let Rs = the satellite orbital radius
Re = the Earth radius
(the altitude h of the satellite is thus Rs-Re)
Nu(s) = the frequency of the signal emitted by the satellite
Nu(e) = the frequency of the signal received at the ground level
Me = the mass of the Earth
G = the gravitational constant
1) The signal will gain a potential energy Ep
(cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85)
Ep = m(ph) * gm * (Rs-Re), where
gm = G * Mearth / (Rs * Re)
m(ph) = hNu(s)/c^2
(m(ph) = "mass" of a photon of initial frequency Nu(s))
Thus Ep = (hNu(s)/c^2) * (G * Mearth / (Rs * Re) * (Rs-Re)
= hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)
As the photon adds Ep to its initial energy hNu(s), its
energy at the ground level (at the distance Re from the Earth center)
becomes
hNu(e) = hNu(s) + hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs), thus
Nu(e) = Nu(s) * [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)]
2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
into account
(N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
Iow, a satellite clock appears to tick slower by a factor
sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
Consequently, the frequency of the received signal is reduced by
the factor sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to the frequency of the
emitted signal. Hence,
Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
[1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) or,
approximately, as vs << c,
Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
[1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * (1-GMe/2Rs*c^2)
Neglecting the higher order term, one is left with
Nu(e)/Nu(s) = [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 3/2Rs)],
a formula which is identical to the approximate GR formula,
but which has been obtained wholly independently from GR or SR.
Marcel Luttgens
>
> - Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148548783.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We have seen this junk twice before, Marcel:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e06dfeef82810893
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7f8fa2d867f9bfce
There you started part 2 with the words:
| To take into account the SR effect due to the orbital
| velocity v(s) of the satellite,
Perhaps you could have a look at your own website and
at your posting history on this newsgroup some day:
There is no length contraction, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/sapere.htm
The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
Mathematical Error in the Lorentz Transformation, by Paul Marmet:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Lorentz/lorentz.html
The Twin paradox falsifies SR:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
Marcel Luttgens, fiercely opposing and tragically misunderstanding
just about every aspect of special relativity, using special relativity
to demonstrate that we really don't need General relativity, which
includes special relativity to begin with.
Either you are a sneaky bastard, or you don't understand what you
have on your website. I put my money on both.
Dirk Vdm
The Sorcerer
Nice one :-)
"Sneaky bastard":
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
Androcles Vdm.
Dirk Van de moortel
"The Sorcerer" <vanq...@broom.Mickey_f> wrote in message news:oQfdg.204524$xt.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:G4fdg.445681$DH.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> | Either you are a sneaky bastard, or you don't understand what you
> | have on your website. I put my money on both.
> |
> | Dirk Vdm
>
> Nice one :-)
> "Sneaky bastard":
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
hehe... what a dope :-)
Dirk Vdm
The Sorcerer
Hehehe... what a psychopath.
How's the paranoia? It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Seen any Mercedes lately? Keep looking over your shoulder.
Figured out who you are yet?
Dirk Van de Androcles.
|
GSS
>> "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
>> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
>
> Ignoring small corrections for minor effects (e.g. errors in orbits,
> planets, moon, ...), yes.
> But note that the clocks on the ground are not
> identical to the clocks on satellites: the engineered difference between
> them is precisely the difference predicted by GR (about 38 usec/day,
> which is enormous compared to the GPS accuracy). Indeed, even not all
> clocks on the ground are identical (due to differences in altitude).
This is a wrong statement.
Kindly ascertain the facts and correct it.
In PARCS the GR correction is expected to be of the order of 0.27
micro sec/day and this is planned to be actually verified. Hopefully
this will constitute the last test of GR before its ultimate collapse.
GSS
>> However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
>> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
>> and rates.
> SR is irrelevant. One _must_ use GR for this physical situation. <shrug>
.....
> Tom Roberts
bz
news:1148548174.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> > bz wrote:
>> >> the
>> >> clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
>> >
>> > Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
>>
>> Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
>> correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the
>> clocks.
>
> Thank you. The claim by Tom Van Flandern "that all satellite
> clocks in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and
> with
> all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> the slight non-circularity of the orbits." is thus confirmed.
It is misleading to state that they remain in syncronization with one
another.
That would imply that even absent the ground stations, they could and would
maintain such syncronization. That implication is incorrect.
The correct way to state things is that each of the orbital clocks is
maintained in syncronization with the network of ground clocks by signals
sent from the ground on a regular basis.
If an orbital clock was to compare its readings with another orbital clock,
it would notice large discrepancies in time as the satellites approached
and receeded from each other, just due to doppler effects.
The implication that the orbital clocks are syncronzed with each other is
thus much worse than slightly misleading, it gives the reader an entirely
wrong idea.
I have no idea WHY the missleading statement was made. It may have been
simple ignorance or it may have been an attempt at giving a wrong
impression, but it should be corrected to reflect the correct situation.
The Sorcerer
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148559480.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Nice one ;-)
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
You are stupid, I didn't use SR in my present derivation!
Marcel Luttgens
Tom Roberts
> The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
> gain has to be taken into account only once.
Not true. The satellite clocks differ from ground clocks in their
intrinsic tick rate by 38 usec _each_and__every_day_. Those clocks, of
course, were modified only once (before launch), but the change applies
continuously to them, becuase it is a change in _rate_.
Tom Roberts
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Which mistakes? Btw, we are not several months ago anymore.
Marcel Luttgens
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> But note that the clocks on the ground are not
>> identical to the clocks on satellites: the engineered difference between
>> them is precisely the difference predicted by GR (about 38 usec/day,
>> which is enormous compared to the GPS accuracy). Indeed, even not all
>> clocks on the ground are identical (due to differences in altitude).
>
> This is a wrong statement.
No, it is not.
> Kindly ascertain the facts and correct it.
_YOU_ need to do that.
> In PARCS the GR correction is expected to be of the order of 0.27
> micro sec/day
Please actually read what is written, and apply basic reading skills:
PARCS is not the GPS. <shrug>
PARCS is designed to fly in the ISS, at its altitude, not at the GPS
satellite altitude. This accounts for the difference (though I have not
checked your value for PARCS). Indeed, at low earth orbit even the
_sign_ of the difference changes, and a clock orbiting ~100 miles up
(e.g. in the space shuttle) will _lose_ time relative to ground clocks.
This is all just an elementary application of GR to the conditions of
the various orbiting clocks. There is nothing new or surprising here,
and this is all well known (by people who understand such things, anyway).
Tom Roberts
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
You are playing with words. A change of rate leads to a change of clock
reading.
It would be better to say that the observed frequency shift is
4.45E-10.
Marcel Luttgens
>
> Tom Roberts
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148562131....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148548783.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
[snip]
> > > 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> > > into account
> > > (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
> > >
> > > For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> > > in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
> > >
> > > For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> > > of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
> > >
> > > Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
> > >
> > > t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
> >
> > We have seen this junk twice before, Marcel:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e06dfeef82810893
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7f8fa2d867f9bfce
> > There you started part 2 with the words:
> > | To take into account the SR effect due to the orbital
> > | velocity v(s) of the satellite,
>
> You are stupid, I didn't use SR in my present derivation!
What an infinitely stupid fart you are:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DidntUseSR.html
| "For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
| in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
|
| For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
| of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
|
| Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
|
| t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)"
.....
| "You are stupid, I didn't use SR in my present derivation!"
*Do* have a look at your own webpages - they are most revealing :-)
Dirk Vdm
brian a m stuckless
> No. It merely shows your confusions are false. <shrug>
$$ LUCKY his "confusions" areN'T *REAL* ..like YOURs are, Dimwit.
> > "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in
> > orbit and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
$$ Synchronized simultaneously different PRE-set tic COUNTs:
$$ One SYNCHRONiZATiON time t, SiMULTANEOUSLY DiFFERENT readings.
$$ Syncronized at ONE time ..but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT readings.
$$ ONE syncronized with the OTHER with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized ..AT ONCE, but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized at TiME t ..but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized at the SAME time with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
$$ BOTH syncronized SiMULTANEOUSLY but with TWO (2) DiFFERENT " .
> Ignoring small corrections for minor effects (e.g. errors in
> orbits, planets, moon, ...), yes. But note that the clocks on
> the ground are not identical to the clocks on satellites: the
> engineered difference between them is precisely the difference
> predicted by [ ..the NEWTON part of] GR (about 38 usec/day,
> which is enormous compared to the GPS accuracy).
> Indeed, even not all clocks on the ground are identical (due
> to differences in altitude).
$$ "ALTiTUDE" the *ONLY* reason, for any NON-PRE-set DiFFERENCEs.
> > However, initial expectations based on special relativity were
> > that clocks in different reference frames should have different
> > readings and rates.
>
> SR is irrelevant. One _must_ use GR for this physical situation.
> <shrug>
$$ ^.
$$ [GR _must_ ..a MUST.!!].
$$ What does "_must_" mean, [ He between his error-bars ] Tom?.
> > (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> > What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's
> > Paradox, Tom Van Flandern).
>
> That explains it -- you are quoting someone just as clueless
> as yourself, from a "journal" that publishes most any nonsense.
> <shrug> [He MUST a _must_ Roberts]
> Tom [ He between his error-bars ] Roberts [ ..@GR.Buffy.com ].
Re: Synchronized simultaneously different PRE-set tic readings.
The Sorcerer
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148563761.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| > > The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
| > > gain has to be taken into account only once.
| >
| > Not true. The satellite clocks differ from ground clocks in their
| > intrinsic tick rate by 38 usec _each_and__every_day_. Those clocks, of
| > course, were modified only once (before launch), but the change applies
| > continuously to them, becuase it is a change in _rate_.
| >
|
| You are playing with words.
That's why he's known as Humpty Roberts.
"SR is irrelevant" - Humpty Roberts.
" "Real" has nothing to do with it.
To obtain a speed, you must divide the distance traveled by the travel
time, and _all_ quantities _must_ be measured in a single coordinate
system. In Newtonian mechanics and SR, the coordinate system must be
inertial, using standard clocks and rulers. In GR (or other coordinate
systems) this merely yields coordinate speed.
_Nothing_ else is speed. Because that is what we mean by the word. <shrug>
"
-- Humpty Roberts
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
news:ZDmYf.51582$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com
Androcles.
va...@cox.net
Here:
Where you use your formula to predict the GPS Earth and satellite based
clocks would have a delta of 31.6 nanoseconds/day.
Here I give you the actual GR prediction and a formula derived from the
Schwarzschild geometry which gives the correct predicition.
And here you still claim your prediction is correct:
Once again I give you the correct answer:
Finally you realize your mistake and say you're sorry.
You realized your mistake after I gave you the right formula.
In a different discussion in that thread I gave up trying to help you
when you insisted that the geometry related to the physics analysis is
irrelevant. Where you claim GR should have a general formula for doing
any analysis.
If for some reason all the thread ferences open up to your original
post then just go to post 104 in this thread where all the details of
what I just discussed can be found. You obviously still havn't learned
anything. You should actually study some physics and quit reading crank
literature. ie Van Flandern.
Bruce
va...@cox.net
Marcel
All thread references where goofed up so just read the entire text
contained in post 104. It details your erronious response until you
conveniently get it right after I gave you the answer. The main error
was using a bogus L rather than r_satellite.
Bruce
Eric Gisse
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[repost #3, google is being uppity]
> GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
A fascinating assertion, considering general relativity was used in the
design of GPS and the successful explanation of the H&K observations.
I'm sure this rant will be as based in reality as your others.
>
> "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
Off to an excellent start, you already made a gigantic error. Once the
clocks are moved, they are nolonger synchornized.
> However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
> a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
> pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
> in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
> all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
Going strong! Another impressive fuckup..!
Question to alert readers: Why might special relativity be a poor
choice of theory for an environment that has an observable
gravitational field?
>
> (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> Tom Van Flandern).
Hahahahah.
>
> Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
> a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
> those effects are straightforwardly explained by
Even more interestingly, they do NOT remain synchronized - contrary to
your claim. If only someone had considered an experiment to test this.
>
> 1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
> potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
> gain potential energy), and
How does one gain potential energy?
> 2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
> the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
> other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
> is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
> altitude.
Think so?
Why don't you compare your...interesting...explanation with reality?
>
> Obviously, such effects are not additive
Only to you.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Sue...
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> [repost #3, google is being uppity]
>
> > GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
>
> A fascinating assertion, considering general relativity was used in the
> design of GPS and the successful explanation of the H&K observations.
Intrestingly... science does not award the same recognition to an
'explanation' as it does for a 'prediction' based on logical
intrepretation and application. It is as tho' the dicipline anticipates
something about human nature that anyone who has ever
bought snake oil knows through experience anyway.
<< According to Hafele & Keating "special relativity predicts
that a moving standard clock will record less time compared
with (real or hypothetical) coordinate clocks distributed at rest
in an inertial reference space" (their words). >>
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/footnode.html
<<Predictions (reasoning including logical
deduction from hypotheses and theories) >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So... the H&K observation fails as science because it
credits the phenomena to motion of the aeroplane.
The GPS altitude effect is reduced to a quantitative
formalism because is incorrectly attributes the frequency
shift to a path effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Can one misinterpretation disprove another misinterpretation?
Sue...
AllYou!
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148478769.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
>
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
In fact, that's incorrect.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Due to a lack of attention, I intoduced the satellite altitude in my
formula
instead of the orbital radius.
But my formula -which clearly needed the radius, not the altitude-
gave the same answer as the GR formula. There was no need to quibble
and quibble.
Now, do you deny that the GR formula can be replaced by the following
formula
based on potential energy and the Pythagoras theorem?
Randy the"cat" seems to have got an indigestion after eating such
cheese:
Let Rs = the satellite orbital radius
Re = the Earth radius
(the altitude h of the satellite is thus Rs-Re)
Nu(s) = the frequency of the signal emitted by the satellite
Nu(e) = the frequency of the signal received at the ground level
Me = the mass of the Earth
G = the gravitational constant
1) The signal will gain a potential energy Ep
(cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85)
Ep = m(ph) * gm * (Rs-Re), where
gm = G * Mearth / (Rs * Re)
m(ph) = hNu(s)/c^2
(m(ph) = "mass" of a photon of initial frequency Nu(s))
Thus Ep = (hNu(s)/c^2) * (G * Mearth / (Rs * Re) * (Rs-Re)
= hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)
As the photon adds Ep to its initial energy hNu(s), its
energy at the ground level (at the distance Re from the Earth center)
becomes
hNu(e) = hNu(s) + hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs), thus
Nu(e) = Nu(s) * [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)]
2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
into account
(N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
Iow, a satellite clock appears to tick slower by a factor
sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
Consequently, the frequency of the received signal is reduced by
the factor sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to the frequency of the
emitted signal. Hence,
Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
[1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) or,
approximately, as vs << c,
Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
[1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * (1-GMe/2Rs*c^2)
Neglecting the higher order term, one is left with
Nu(e)/Nu(s) = [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 3/2Rs)],
a formula which is identical to the approximate GR formula,
but which has been obtained wholly independently from GR or SR.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148651746....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[anip]
> 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> into account
> (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
>
> For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
>
> For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
>
> Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
>
> t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
No, retired retard, that's special relativity. You don't
accept that and you don't understand it:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DidntUseSR.html
There is no length contraction, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/sapere.htm
The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
Mathematical Error in the Lorentz Transformation, by Paul Marmet:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Lorentz/lorentz.html
The Twin paradox falsifies SR:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Eric Gisse wrote:
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> [repost #3, google is being uppity]
>
> > GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
>
> A fascinating assertion, considering general relativity was used in the
> design of GPS and the successful explanation of the H&K observations.
>
> I'm sure this rant will be as based in reality as your others.
>
> >
> > "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> > and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
>
> Off to an excellent start, you already made a gigantic error. Once the
> clocks are moved, they are nolonger synchornized.
They need only very small corrections.
>
> > However, initial expectations based on special relativity were that
> > clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> > and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
> > a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
> > pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
> > in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
> > all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> > corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> > the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
>
> Going strong! Another impressive fuckup..!
*You* are fucking up, not Tom Van Flandern !
>
> Question to alert readers: Why might special relativity be a poor
> choice of theory for an environment that has an observable
> gravitational field?
>
Poor digression.
> >
> > (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> > What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> > Tom Van Flandern).
>
> Hahahahah.
>
> >
> > Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
> > a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
> > those effects are straightforwardly explained by
>
> Even more interestingly, they do NOT remain synchronized - contrary to
> your claim. If only someone had considered an experiment to test this.
>
Hahahah !
> >
> > 1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
> > potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
> > gain potential energy), and
>
> How does one gain potential energy?
Read Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85, perhaps
you will understand how.
>
> > 2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
> > the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
> > other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
> > is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
> > altitude.
>
> Think so?
>
> Why don't you compare your...interesting...explanation with reality?
>
With those premisses, I obtained the same formula as GR.
Ask yourself why, and what are the consequences for GR theory.
But you seem to be just another parrot.
Marcel Luttens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [anip]
>
> > 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> > into account
> > (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
> >
> > For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> > in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
> >
> > For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> > of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
> >
> > Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
> >
> > t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
>
> No, retired retard, that's special relativity.
Poor Sad Sack,
Once again, you forwarded my responses to
alt.local.village.idiot, the group you belong to.
So, I have to repeat them:
> No, retired retard, that's special relativity.
???
That's the result of the Pythagoras theorm.
You are not only stupid, you are a cretin.
You are mixing up SR and the Pythagoras theorem, cretin.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148662614.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148651746....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > [anip]
> >
> > > 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> > > into account
> > > (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
> > >
> > > For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> > > in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
> > >
> > > For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> > > of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
> > >
> > > Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
> > >
> > > t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
> >
> > No, retired retard, that's special relativity.
>
> Poor Sad Sack,
>
> Once again, you forwarded my responses to
> alt.local.village.idiot, the group you belong to.
>
> So, I have to repeat them:
>
> > No, retired retard, that's special relativity.
>
> ???
> That's the result of the Pythagoras theorm.
> You are not only stupid, you are a cretin.
>
> You are mixing up SR and the Pythagoras theorem, cretin.
>
You used the fact that light speed is c in the two frames
and you used Pythagoras' theorem. Now look at just about
every elementary introduction to special relativity.
We have seen you do exactly the same thing twice before
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e06dfeef82810893
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7f8fa2d867f9bfce
where you used the explicit words:
| To take into account the SR effect due to the orbital
| velocity v(s) of the satellite,
After I pointed this out to you on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d15aa855978e6353
now you sneakily try to dodge the fact that you use SR to
demonstrate that we really don't need GR, which includes SR
to begin with, SR that you clearly don't accept nor understand:
There is no length contraction, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/mmx.htm
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/sapere.htm
The Lorentz transformation (LT) are false, by M. Luttgens:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm
Mathematical Error in the Lorentz Transformation, by Paul Marmet:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Lorentz/lorentz.html
The Twin paradox falsifies SR:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm
You are an extremely dumb *and* and an even more extremely
dishonest little twerp, Marcel. Just get it over with and admit to
what we *all* know since so many years, and what we all can
just for ourselves ;-)
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
I am wondering why I bother to repeat that the application of the
Pythagoras
theorem does'nt imply that one is using SR.
Only a crackpot could think otherwise.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148664951.7...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e06dfeef82810893
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7f8fa2d867f9bfce
| "To take into account the SR effect due to the orbital
| velocity v(s) of the satellite,"
>
> Only a crackpot could think otherwise.
Only a complete imbecile like you could think that we would
be dumb enough not to notice your malicious little dodging scheme ;-)
Dirk Vdm
The Sorcerer
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1148662614.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| [anip]
hahaha.. HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
Androcles Vdm.
Tom Van Flandern
>> [mluttgens]: The claim by Tom Van Flandern "that all satellite clocks in
>> all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with all ground
>> clocks without need for further consideration of relativity corrections,
>> with the exception of one small correction needed for the slight
>> non-circularity of the orbits" is thus confirmed.
> [bz]: It is misleading to state that they remain in synchronization with
> one another. That would imply that even absent the ground stations, they
> could and would maintain such synchronization. That implication is
> incorrect.
You are mixing two unrelated things. No clock is perfect, and
atomic clocks are no exception. They accumulate random errors of order 1
nanosecond (0.001 microseconds) in epoch and 1 ns/day in rate. If unchecked,
these would eventually build up to errors that would interfere with the
accuracy of the GPS system. So an ensemble of clocks on the ground is used
to form an average, and this "master clock" time is used to adjust readings
of each GPS satellite clock on a regular basis. These tiny fixes have
nothing to do with relativity corrections, which are thousands of times
larger.
These daily clock corrections are similar to those you might
apply to your wristwatch. It is an accurate timepiece, but not perfect. So
from time to time, you correct its readings to conform to those of a better
time standard. This does not invalidate all the uses you made of the watch
between corrections.
> [bz]: The correct way to state things is that each of the orbital clocks
> is maintained in synchronization with the network of ground clocks by
> signals sent from the ground on a regular basis.
That is true *only* for the tiny, random clock imperfections. It
has no relevance in a discussion of relativity corrections.
> [bz]: If an orbital clock was to compare its readings with another orbital
> clock, it would notice large discrepancies in time as the satellites
> approached and receded from each other, just due to doppler effects.
Orbital clocks now regularly compare readings with one another
(Block F satellites). Doppler effects do not matter for such comparisons.
One only needs to know the positions at transmission and reception, just as
when GPS satellites communicate with Monitor Stations on the ground. There
are no "large discrepancies in time" in either case.
> [bz]: The implication that the orbital clocks are synchronized with each
> other is thus much worse than slightly misleading, it gives the reader an
> entirely wrong idea.
It is never a good idea to substitute faith in one's own ideas
for first-hand knowledge of the subject. I worked as a consultant on
improving the accuracy of the GPS system for about six years. I learned a
lot about GPS and relativity in that period, including that some of my
preconceptions about relativity were wrong. Many others would apparently
benefit from the same experience because, in an informal pole of physicists
before GPS went operational, roughly half thought the system could not be
made to work because of the "lack of remote simultaneity" in SR.
I wrote a white paper on how GPS works from a Monitor Station
perspective, which is quite different from a GPS receiver's perspective. See
"Absolute GPS to better than 1 meter" at
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter.ASP.
> [bz]: I have no idea WHY the misleading statement was made. It may have
> been simple ignorance or it may have been an attempt at giving a wrong
> impression, but it should be corrected to reflect the correct situation.
And I trust you will now wish to inform yourself so you do not
do what you complain about others doing. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on replacement astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Van Flandern" <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote in message news:xpidnYCbcICH3-rZ...@wavecable.com...
[snip]
> Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on replacement astronomy
> research at http://metaresearch.org
Replacement astronomy in action:
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/face443x443_6.2.00.mov
Dirk Vdm
va...@cox.net
Due to a lack of knowledge Marcel. You got it right AFTER you saw the
formula derived from the Schwarzschild metric.
>I intoduced the satellite altitude in my
> formula
> instead of the orbital radius.
That is what you did. You finally fixed it after reviewing the formula
derived from the Schwarzschild metric
> But my formula -which clearly needed the radius, not the altitude-
> gave the same answer as the GR formula. There was no need to quibble
> and quibble.
There definitely was reason to quibble since your original derivation
was wrong. I also explicitly showed you why your generalized weak field
'fixed formula' was useless for analysing both your strong field
scenerios. You stonewalled me because you have a hopeless agenda
[doesn't include learning] for proving GR is 'not a good tool for doing
gravitational physics'. You also won't acknowledge that the relational
geometry of orbiting bodies is a relevant parameter when analysing the
physics of the orbiting bodies. Further proof that your agenda doesn't
include learning.
Bruce
ps-your claim that your weak field approximation was derived separately
from GR is really ignorant. Figure out why?
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
You seemingly didn't pay attention, here again my former general
formula:
Exemple:
M1 = M* ( M* = 1 solar mass = 1.989E+33 g),
R1 = 5 Km,
M2 = 5 M*,
R2 = 20 km,
d = 50 km.
M1 = 1.989E+33 'g
M2 = 1.989E+33 * 5 'g
R1 = 500000! 'cm
R2 = 2000000! 'cm
d = 5000000! 'cm
G = 6.673E-08 'Universal gravitational constant (CGS)
c = 2.998E+10 'Speed of light in cm/s
M1 = G * M1 / c ^ 2
M2 = G * M2 / c ^ 2
General formula:
Nu2/Nu1 = 1 - M1*(1/R-1/(d-R2)-1/(2 * d)) + M2*(1/R2-1/(d-R1)-1/(2*d))
Notice that your formula dtshell_M** / dtshell_M* = ( 1 - 2M**/r**
)^1/2 / ( 1 - 3M**/r*** )^1/2
was awfully wrong!
Now consider an Earth satellite of negligible mass M1 and radius R1.
The general formula reduces to
Nu2/Nu1 = 1 + M2(1/R2 - 3d/2), where M2 = G*Mearth/c^2 and d is
the orbital radius of the satellite.
Nothing wrong in my formula!
Marcel Luttgens
The Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:gqHdg.449008$bU6.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Tom Van Flandern" <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote in message
news:xpidnYCbcICH3-rZ...@wavecable.com...
|
| [snip]
No, he didn't write [snip] at all, you lying cunt.
As we know, all shithead relativists are dishonest, some are even
psychopaths.
Don't you mean [anip]? :-)
Figured out who you are yet?
Androcles Vdm.
The Sorcerer
| Only a complete imbecile like you could think that we would
| be dumb enough not to notice your malicious little dodging scheme ;-)
|
| Dirk Vdm
Who are "we", Dorky old cunt?
You and the other cowardly cretins in your tight little band of local
village idiots?
Androcles Vdm.
va...@cox.net
It was only wrong for a nitwit with an agenda such as you marcel. It
was a reasonable attempt for getting an approximate answer for your
goofy scenerio. It showed how wrong you are. No problem since everybody
posting in this ng, who isn't clueless, expects you to be wrong. Enough
said goofball.
Bruce
Eric Gisse
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> >
> > [repost #3, google is being uppity]
> >
> > > GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
> >
> > A fascinating assertion, considering general relativity was used in the
> > design of GPS and the successful explanation of the H&K observations.
> >
> > I'm sure this rant will be as based in reality as your others.
> >
> > >
> > > "In the GPS, all atomic clocks in all reference frames (in orbit
> > > and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
> >
> > Off to an excellent start, you already made a gigantic error. Once the
> > clocks are moved, they are nolonger synchornized.
>
> They need only very small corrections.
Which means they are nolonger synchronized. "Very small" is markedly
different from "none".
[...]
Sue...
Clocks are always moving in 'space time' because they are
defined that way to permit the interchange of spatial and temporal
axes.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
To say clocks can't be synchronised because of their motion
is the same as telling a bird hunter his success is a matter
of pure random chance and he need not concern himself
about when he pulls the trigger.
Sue...
>
>
> [...]
bz
news:1148721496.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
They can be REsyncronized.
but NOT "are set once and stay synchronized"
> Sue...
>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>
>
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sue...
Frayed knot:
<< Note that even after the Lorentz gauge has been
adopted, the potentials are undetermined to a gauge
transformation using a scalar field, , which satisfies the
sourceless wave equation (1450)
However, if we adopt sensible boundary conditions in
both space and time then the only solution to the above
equation is . () >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node118.html
<< The Lorenz gauge is incomplete, in the sense that there
is this residual gauge freedom. However, the gauge degrees
of freedom propagate at the speed of light. In special relativity
this is a covariant gauge. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
The gauge is produce by assuming a fixed relation
between time and displacment. You can not, by royal
decree declare something to be a physical 'clock'
and operate on it with 3 space rules.
If you want to claim a clock slowed because someone
put a magnet near it, you have tranform back to the
Coulomb gauge where you can model the magnetic force.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
Sue...
Sue... wrote:
> bz wrote:
snip
>
> If you want to claim a clock slowed because someone
> put a magnet near it, you have tranform back to the
> Coulomb gauge where you can model the magnetic force.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
BTW... If you have access to:
<< R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on
Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3]
The more accurate measurement with Snider. >>
... you might find a good example of an atomic clock
that slows when you hold a planet near it.
consistant with logical interpretation described in:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Sue...
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
I maintain that your formula was awfully wrong, cf.
I retain
- that you couldn't find a general GR solution for the above scenario.
- that your solution in which you treated M1 as a satellite of M2 leads
to wrong results, meaning that it is false.
Indeed, the fact that M1 is a satellite of M2 is independant from d,
the distance between the centers of M and M.
As your r*** = d(1-M*/(M* + M**)) = .8333 d, your formula can be
written
dtshell_M** / dtshell_M*
= ( 1 - 2M**/r** )^1/2 / ( 1 - 3M**/.8333 d )^1/2
So, if d is big, for instance 200 000 000 m, the denominator
( 1 - 3M**/.8333 d )^1/2 becomes ~1, and your formula reduces
to dtshell_M** / dtshell_M* = ( 1 - 2M**/r** )^1/2 =~ .511
This makes of course no sense.
You should have gotten 1.074 instead, a blue shift, not an enormous
redshit.
-that the derivation of your second solution has not be presented
Yes, you have shown a formula for both scenarios, but the first one is
definitvely false, and the second one seems ad hoc.
There are very good reasons to go further, but by somebody who has a
very good knowledge of GR theory, and also a good practice of the
mathematical
verification of the formulae he found.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > Randy Poe wrote:
> > > > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > > The clock without the alterations gained 38000 nsec per day,
> > > > every day. The clock with the alterations keeps time with
> > > > earthbound clocks to within random errors of +-20 nsec
> > > > per day. That "adds up" pretty well for me.
> > >
> > > And how do you explain that orbit and ground clocks need to be
> > > synchonized *only once* if orbit clocks gain 38 usec *per day*
> > > over the ground clocks ?
> >
> > of the orbiting clocks so that, on earth, they lose 38 usec per day.
> > Then they are put in orbit and keep time with earth clocks to a
> > small fraction of a microsecond per day. Only one satellite was
> > ever orbited without this alteration.
> >
> > Why do you think that disagrees with the statement that
> > unaltered clocks gain 38 usec per day? The clocks in orbit
> > aren't "unaltered".
> >
> > Why do you keep asking me to "explain" statements that
> > aren't contradictory?
> >
> > "Me: Joe runs twice as fast as Bob.
> >
> > You: Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the fact that Joe
> > wins races against Bob?"
> >
> > Are you going to ask me next to "explain" why in one post
> > I'd say "+- 20 nsec" and in another "a small fraction of
> > a microsecond"?
>
> The important fact is that the term "daily" is misleading. The 38 usec
> gain has to be taken into account only once.
>
> >
> > > > Can you show me the calculation that comes up with an
> > > > altitude-dependent number, that correctly gives 38 usec/day
> > > > for GPS altitude?
> > >
> > > Sure, I will show you the calculation tomorrow.
> >
>
> Here is the cheese, don't get an indigestion !
Randy wrote:
"Like the cat that ate the cheese, I await with baited breath."
He ate the cheese , and got an indigestion!
Relativists should understand that observing a frequency shift betwen
an emitted
and received signal doesn't imply that the signal frequency changed at
the emitter
level, or worse, that the rate of the satellite clocks was affected by
motion and
altitude..
>From "Physics Today. Relativity and GPS. May 2002":
"Each satellite carries one or more very stable atomic clocks, so that
the satellites can transmit synchronous timing signals.
The signals carry coded information about the transmission time and
position of the satellite.
... the net frequency correction for a GPS satellite
is negative, amounting to 4.4645 parts per ten billion.
Nowadays the rate of every orbiting GPS clock is adjusted by this
"factory offset" before launch."
The clock rate is indeed adjusted *before launch", with the consequence
that
the frequency of the emitted signal is itself modified in order to
eliminate
the shift.
Notice that the shift obtained from the formula
Shift = (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 3/2Rs)
derived from the potential energy gain of the signal and the motion of
the satellite
is about 4.45E-10, which corresponds nicely to the 4.4645 parts per ten
billion
cited above.
After modification of the frequency of the emitted signal via the clock
adjustment,
the observed shift of course disappears.
Marcel Luttgens
"
>
> >
> > - Randy
bz
news:1148732614.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
You nead knot fear. In this case the FACT is that the clocks are NOT 'set
and forget'. They do NOT stay synchronized without 'outside' intervention.
> << Note that even after the Lorentz gauge has been
> adopted, the potentials are undetermined to a gauge
.... snipped theoretical arguments. FACTs always trump theories.
> equation is . () >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node118.html
>
> << The Lorenz gauge is incomplete, in the sense that there
.... snipped theoretical argument ....
> If you want to claim a clock slowed because someone
> put a magnet near it, you have tranform back to the
> Coulomb gauge where you can model the magnetic force.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
I only state that REGARDLESS of the explanation of why, the clocks in
orbit DID need to be adjusted by an amount that (perhaps coincidently) do
match closely the amount predicted by GR.
REGARDLESS of the explanation of why, those orbiting clocks DO need to be
readjusted on a daily basis.
Not "are set once and stay synchronized".
REGARDLESS of the explanation of why, those orbiting clocks are NOT
synchronized with each other, they are synchronzied with ground based
clocks.
Don't join the fray. Don't confuse theory with fact, its knot nice, and
throwing thories at things does not change the facts.
Sue...
You have not changed from theory to fact.
You have just changed from Lorenz to Coulomb gauge.
>
>
> > << Note that even after the Lorentz gauge has been
> > adopted, the potentials are undetermined to a gauge
>
> .... snipped theoretical arguments. FACTs always trump theories.
>
> > equation is . () >>
> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node118.html
> >
> > << The Lorenz gauge is incomplete, in the sense that there
> .... snipped theoretical argument ....
> > If you want to claim a clock slowed because someone
> > put a magnet near it, you have tranform back to the
> > Coulomb gauge where you can model the magnetic force.
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>
> I only state that REGARDLESS of the explanation of why, the clocks in
> orbit DID need to be adjusted by an amount that (perhaps coincidently) do
> match closely the amount predicted by GR.
When the asynchrony is attributed to motion, a
comparison in the Lorenz gauge is usually the reason.
<<Off to an excellent start, you already made a gigantic error.
Once the clocks are moved, they are nolonger synchornized. >>
>
> REGARDLESS of the explanation of why, those orbiting clocks DO need to be
> readjusted on a daily basis.
About +/- 7ns last I looked.
>
> Not "are set once and stay synchronized".
"The correction for gravity only occurs once" might
have been better phrasing... tho there may be minor
corrections for oblateness.
>
> REGARDLESS of the explanation of why, those orbiting clocks are NOT
> synchronized with each other, they are synchronzied with ground based
> clocks.
That is my understanding of the general plan but PARCs RACE
SUMO and a host of other applications may require they
compare with their neighbors to use a better path so I would
not say it never happens or isn't planned.
>
> Don't join the fray. Don't confuse theory with fact, its knot nice, and
> throwing thories at things does not change the facts.
I am the fray. Like it or knot. Don't confuse theory with Lorenz
gauge or fact with Coulomb gauge. That is what your adversaries
are doing and you should call them on it. ;-)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Even if the falling photon is absurd, the Lorenz gauge calculation
produces a respectable prediction for the energy the clock
looses to earth and it seems to work for every SV so it is
unlikely just a co-incidence.
Sue...
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
P.S.: Iow, the frequency of the ground clocks signals and the frequency
of the signals emitted via the adjusted clocks of the
satellites and
received at the ground level are identical.
Marcel Luttgens
>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
>
>
> "
> >
> > >
> > > - Randy
Paul B. Andersen
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Ff8dg.76544$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> | mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> | > bz wrote:
> | >> the
> | >> clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
> | >
> | > Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
> |
> | Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
> | correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the
> clocks.
> |
> | If you're really interested, google is your friend, and I believe they
> | publish the corrections daily on the web.
> |
> |
> | Tom Roberts
>
> Shithead Humpty Roberts doesn't recall correctly.
> 38 microseconds corresponds to 0.5 inches for a Global POSITIONING System.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/sundials.htm
Hilarious, isn't it? :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>> bz wrote:
>>
>>> the
>>> clocks are regularly resyncronzed.
>>
>>
>> Every day? And when they are resynchronized, by how much?
>
>
> Typically a few ns, IIRC. Vastly smaller than the 38 microsec of the GR
> correction. BTW that is comparable to the intrinsic stability of the
> clocks.
>
> If you're really interested, google is your friend, and I believe they
> publish the corrections daily on the web.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
Paul
The Sorcerer
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:e5ejad$99q$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
<yawn>
Androcles.
Paul B. Andersen
And according to which theory is this? :-)
> 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> into account
> (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
>
> For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
>
> For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
>
> Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
>
> t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
> = t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
>
> Iow, a satellite clock appears to tick slower by a factor
> sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
Funny way to calculate the "SR-correction" without admitting
that you have used SR. :-)
> Consequently, the frequency of the received signal is reduced by
> the factor sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to the frequency of the
> emitted signal. Hence,
>
> Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
> [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) or,
> approximately, as vs << c,
> Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
> [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * (1-GMe/2Rs*c^2)
>
> Neglecting the higher order term, one is left with
>
> Nu(e)/Nu(s) = [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 3/2Rs)],
>
> a formula which is identical to the approximate GR formula,
> but which has been obtained wholly independently from GR or SR.
So which theory did you use? :-)
But what is your point?
The rate of the satellite clocks is lowered by the amount
predicted by GR, and are then running in synch with the GPS-time.
The GR prediction is thus proven to be correct.
How does this falsify the claim that the results of
the H&K experiment was as predicted by GR?
Paul
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
More or less classical mechanics, see cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by
St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85
>
> > 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> > into account
> > (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
> >
> > For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> > in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
> >
> > For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> > of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
> >
> > Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
> >
> > t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
> > = t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
> >
> > Iow, a satellite clock appears to tick slower by a factor
> > sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
>
> Funny way to calculate the "SR-correction" without admitting
> that you have used SR. :-)
Not so funny, the correction is simply geometrical.
>
> > Consequently, the frequency of the received signal is reduced by
> > the factor sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to the frequency of the
> > emitted signal. Hence,
> >
> > Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
> > [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) or,
> > approximately, as vs << c,
> > Nu(e)/Nu(s) =
> > [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)] * (1-GMe/2Rs*c^2)
> >
> > Neglecting the higher order term, one is left with
> >
> > Nu(e)/Nu(s) = [1 + (G*Mearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 3/2Rs)],
> >
> > a formula which is identical to the approximate GR formula,
> > but which has been obtained wholly independently from GR or SR.
>
> So which theory did you use? :-)
Classical mechanics and geometry, that explains the observed frequency
shift of
the emitted light. This doesn't mean that the clocks rate was affected,
contrarily to
the claim made by Einsteinian relativists.
Btw, it is funny to claim that the gravitational potential affects the
tick rate, whereas
acceleration doesn't !
>
> But what is your point?
> The rate of the satellite clocks is lowered by the amount
> predicted by GR, and are then running in synch with the GPS-time.
> The GR prediction is thus proven to be correct.
Yes, the GR prediction is correct, but this doesn't mean that the cause
of the rate
"lowering" is a modification of the clocks ticking rate.
>
> How does this falsify the claim that the results of
> the H&K experiment was as predicted by GR?
I am *very* skeptical about the validity of the H&K analysis of the
observations.
The error sources were enormous!
Marcel Luttgens
>
> Paul
Randy Poe
I did?
Why do all crackpots claim telepathic powers?
I'm on vacation, enjoying real life. Deal with it.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1148908969.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > > 2) But the orbital velociy vs of the satellite must also be taken
> > > into account
> > > (N.B.: vs^2 = GMe/Rs).
> > >
> > > For a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance Rs - Re
> > > in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
> > >
> > > For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
> > > of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and Rs-Re = ct'.
> > >
> > > Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
> > >
> > > t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
> > > = t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
> > >
> > > Iow, a satellite clock appears to tick slower by a factor
> > > sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
> >
> > Funny way to calculate the "SR-correction" without admitting
> > that you have used SR. :-)
>
> Not so funny, the correction is simply geometrical.
One hundred percent simply special-relativistic. Congratulations.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DidntUseSR.html
That must really hurt, specially if you also have another look
at your website ;-)
What a dope.
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Seemigly, you got some indigestion,after all, as your vocabulry is
limited to
eructations, like cracpot. Could also be something worser,delirium
tremens,
a condition associate with hallucinations, as youn see cracpots
everywhere.
Yea, that's also part of real life, and one has to deal with it;
Marcel Luttgens
>
> - Randy
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
What a crookedness!
Marcel Luttgens
>
> Dirk Vdm
Phil
> and on the ground) are set once and stay synchronized.
> clocks in different reference frames should have different readings
> and rates. Yet the Global Positioning System is designed in such
> a way that, after the individual clock rates are adjusted once
> pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects, all satellite clocks
> in all orbits remain in synchronization with one another and with
> all ground clocks without need for further consideration of relativity
> corrections, with the exception of one small correction needed for
> the slight non-circularity of the orbits."
>
> (Apeiron, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
> What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twin's Paradox,
> Tom Van Flandern).
>
> Interestingly, all "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized,
> a fact which excludes additive relativistic effects. In fact,
> those effects are straightforwardly explained by
>
> 1) the blue shift of the the signals due to difference of gravitational
> potentials between the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons
> gain potential energy), and
> 2) the redshift of the signals due to their travel along
> the hypothenuse of an approximately right-angled triangle whose
> other sides are vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t
> is the time that the signals would need to cover the satellites
> altitude.
>
> Obviously, such effects are not additive
>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
I'm confused, why does this issue exist? In the first place, given
perfect clocks in perfect orbits -- circular as seen by observers on
either the Earth or on the orbiting clocks -- GR predicts that the
orbiting clocks will run at a constant rate as seen by observers on the
Earth, and clocks on the Earth will run at a constant rate as seen by
the observers orbiting with the clocks. Even if the Earth is assumed to
have an "absolute velocity," or simply a velocity relative to some other
inertial observer X, observer X will both predict and verify the
constant rates of the clocks. Now, as seen by X, the orbits are
elliptical (unless the orbital plane is perpendicular to the Earth's
velocity), the clocks speed up and slow down, both in velocity and time,
the time required for signals to go to and from the earth varies, but
all of these factors, as predicted by GR, exactly cancel each other out.
The end result is simply that the clocks speed up because they are
higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and they slow down because
they are moving faster than objects on the Earth's surface, and that's
it! The only other "variations" are the same drifts in the clocks one
sees on Earth, and variations in the time it takes to get through the
Earth's atmosphere, neither of which is related to relativity.
Surely someone, somewhere, has done an easy to understand analysis of
this problem. It was too difficult for me to solve directly with all the
various equations (or at least I had no desire to try), but I ran a
computer program that used numerical methods to calculate the results,
and everything does indeed cancel out. I have my issues with relativity,
but this is an imaginary issue, not a real one.
Phil
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
I received an E-mail from somebody I don't know. I tried to send him
(her)
a reponse, but the address seemed to be false.
Here are my comments :
You are perfectly right. If the ground clocks and the satellite clocks
emit the same frequency Nu1, the received signal from the satellite
clocks will be Nu2<>Nu1, unless the satellites clocks are "adjusted
*once* pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects" (leaving aside
small periodic adjustments). Then Nu2=Nu1, an quasi-permanent equality.
The classical explanation is indeed that "the satellite clocks speed up
because they are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and slow
down because they are moving faster than objects on the Earth's
surface". One could as well consider that the moving clocks and
the Earth clocks keep ticking at the same rate, but the frequency of
the signals emitted by the satellite clocks are *observed* to be
blue-shifted by a gain of potential energy, and red-shifted by the
longer
path travelled by the signal when observed from Earth. The pre-launch
adjustment of the frequency of the satellite signals cancel the net
effect for the Earth observer.
It is well known that accelerations, even enormous, don't affect the
tick rate of clocks. So, why should the small Earth's gravitational
field affect it. This seems to me a contradiction.
Consequently, contrarily to what they claimed, Hafele & Keating could
not observe significative time differences between the flying and
ground clocks after the former ones were brought back to the ground.
Needless to add that their experiment had a lot of experimental and
even systematic errors sources (They said themselves that "the number
of
measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis", whatever
"good" means. Perhaps that their analysis could not be considered
as good?).
Marcel
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
You are perfectly right. If the ground clocks and the satellite clocks
emit the same frequency Nu1, the received signal from the satellite
clocks will be Nu2<>Nu1, unless the satellites clocks are "adjusted
*once* pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects" (leaving aside
small periodic adjustments). Then Nu2=Nu1, an quasi-permanent equality.
The classical explanation is indeed that "the satellite clocks speed up
because they are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and slow
down because they are moving faster than objects on the Earth's
surface". One could as well consider that the moving clocks and
the Earth clocks keep ticking at the same rate, but the frequency of
the signals emitted by the satellite clocks are *observed* to be
blue-shifted by a gain of potential energy, and red-shifted by the
longer
path travelled by the signal when observed from Earth. The pre-launch
adjustment of the frequency of the satellite signals cancel the net
effect for the Earth observer.
It is well known that accelerations, even enormous, don't affect the
tick rate of clocks. So, why should the small Earth's gravitational
field affect it. This seems to me a contradiction.
Consequently, contrarily to what they claimed, Hafele & Keating could
not observe significative time differences between the flying and
ground clocks after the former ones were brought back to the ground.
Needless to add that their experiment had a lot of experimental and
even systematic errors sources (They said themselves that "the number
of
measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis", whatever
"good" means. Perhaps that their analysis could not be considered
as good?).
Marcel
>
> Phil
Randy Poe
OK, back from vacation. Let's take a look at this mess.
> > > Here is the cheese, don't get an indigestion !
> > >
> > > Let Rs = the satellite orbital radius
> > > Re = the Earth radius
> > > (the altitude h of the satellite is thus Rs-Re)
> > > Nu(s) = the frequency of the signal emitted by the satellite
> > > Nu(e) = the frequency of the signal received at the ground level
> > > Me = the mass of the Earth
> > > G = the gravitational constant
> > >
> > > 1) The signal will gain a potential energy Ep
> > >
> > > (cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85)
> > >
> > > Ep = m(ph) * gm * (Rs-Re), where
> > > gm = G * Mearth / (Rs * Re)
You're assuming a photon has a gravitational mass. If it
did, then Ep is
G*Mearth*m(ph)*(1/Re - 1/Rs)
which can be combined to get your expression above. So that
is correct.
> > > m(ph) = hNu(s)/c^2
We know by experiment that the photon does not have
mass hf/c^2. The mass of a 1 MeV photon is known to be
no more than 10^-16 eV. So you are at least 22 orders of
magnitude off here.
Let's try to repair your theory and assume a value consistent
with experiment. Wouldn't you agree that a theory shouldn't
contradict experiment?
m(ph) = aNu(s)/c^2
where a is some constant << h, at least 22 orders of magnitude
smaller (perhaps a=0).
> > > (m(ph) = "mass" of a photon of initial frequency Nu(s))
> > > Thus Ep = (hNu(s)/c^2) * (G * Mearth / (Rs * Re) * (Rs-Re)
> > > = hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)
If you replace h by a, then OK.
> > > As the photon adds Ep to its initial energy hNu(s), its
> > > energy at the ground level (at the distance Re from the Earth center)
> > > becomes
> > >
> > > hNu(e) = hNu(s) + hNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs), thus
Well no, because we have to replace h by a in that second term.
hNu(e) = hNu(s) + aNu(s) * (GMearth/c^2) * (1/Re - 1/Rs)
and remember a/h < 10^-22.
I think you're also doing something strange below, but let's
start here.
- Randy
Tom Van Flandern
[Phil]: I'm confused, why does this issue exist? In the first place, given
perfect clocks in perfect orbits -- circular as seen by observers on either
the Earth or on the orbiting clocks -- GR predicts that the orbiting clocks
will run at a constant rate as seen by observers on the Earth, and clocks on
the Earth will run at a constant rate as seen by the observers orbiting with
the clocks.
This part of the issue has been resolved. But it is still
interesting for what it teaches us about relativity.
Clocks change rate both because of their gravitational potential
and because of their speed. For GPS, lets ignore the potential effect
predicted by GR (45,900 ns/day) for the moment, and just look at the speed
effect predicted by SR (7200 ns/day). Ground clocks expect to see orbiting
clocks slowed by that amount, 7200 ns/day. However, because of the
pre-launch corrections, the orbiting clocks have been *sped up* in rate by
7200 ns/day, and then operate at the same rate as ground clocks once in
orbit.
Meanwhile, because of the relativity of motion, unadjusted
orbiting clocks might expect to see ground clocks slowed by that same
amount, 7200 ns/day. Then after the rate speed-up, we might expect the
orbiting clocks to see the ground clocks running slower by twice as much,
14,400 ns/day. That doesn't happen. Why not?
If we had Einstein-synchronized all clocks by exchanging light
signals, that is exactly what would be seen. However, if the system had been
Einstein-synchronized, the clock corrections would be variable because the
clocks are always changing inertial frames. Each ground clock would have to
maintain a set of special corrections for each orbiting clock, and those
corrections would be different at each new ground location. The system would
become unmanageably complex, as many physicists predicted before GPS went
operational.
Instead, GPS clocks use Lorentz synchronization. Each clock
ignores its own motion (and potential too, for that matter) and synchronizes
to an imaginary co-located clock at rest in the local gravitational
potential field. And just as Lorentz predicted, perfect clocks set once in
epoch and rate in this way will remain synchronized forever as long as they
do not change potential or speed with respect to the local field. And that
is how GPS manages the trick of having all clocks always mutually
synchronized.
** For a short primer on Lorentzian relativity (LR), see:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
** For a white paper on GPS operations from a Monitor Station perspective,
see:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter.ASP
** For an article on what GPS teaches us about relativity, see:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
** For a PowerPoint slide presentation about GPS and relativity basics, see:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/vanflandern.ppt
** And for those who want to go deeper, an article about using the GPS
"trick" to keep on-board clocks synchronized with stay-at-home clocks is
applied to the twins' paradox at:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp
> [Phil]: all of these factors, as predicted by GR, exactly cancel each
> other out. The end result is simply that the clocks speed up because they
> are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and they slow down because
> they are moving faster than objects on the Earth's surface, and that's it!
Not quite. Sometimes the potential and speed effects cancel, and
sometimes they add together. The real ellipticity of the GPS satellite
orbits is a good example of the latter. When GPS satellites near perigee,
they are in a stronger gravitational potential (slows clocks), and are
traveling faster through the local potential field (also slows clocks). So
the two effects accumulate rather than cancel.
For other examples of cancellation and accumulation, see the
above PowerPoint presentation. Free PPT viewers are available for most
personal computers.
and Marcel <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote (to Phil):
> [Marcel]: One could as well consider that the moving clocks and the Earth
> clocks keep ticking at the same rate, but the frequency of the signals
> emitted by the satellite clocks are *observed* to be blue-shifted by a
> gain of potential energy, and red-shifted by the longer path traveled by
> the signal when observed from Earth. The pre-launch adjustment of the
> frequency of the satellite signals cancels the net effect for the Earth
> observer.
I see no basis in experiment, observation, argumentation, or
citation for this claim. First, there is no "longer path traveled when
observed from Earth". The satellite path traveled is the same, no matter
where it is observed from, or how it is observed (optical, radio, laser, or
radar). (If you are thinking "Lorentz contraction" here, it is negligible
for GPS satellites for purposes of this discussion, being less than a
centimeter.) And when the doppler shift of the signals is measured (which
happens only at Monitor Stations), that shift has nothing to do with the
clock comparisons. The rate difference between orbiting and ground clocks,
if it had not been fixed before launch, would build toward an indefinitely
large time offset at the net rate of 38,700 ns/day, or roughly one full
second per century. And we can always choose to compare clocks with the
satellites in the same configuration.
How can we be sure what would happen if the pre-launch
correction had not been applied? Simple. We just undo the correction while
the satellite is in orbit. A cesium atomic clock works by counting certain
transitions of the stable cesium atom, which normally occur at a rate of
about 10 billion per second, or about one quadrillion transitions per day.
(The precise number per second is part of the definition of one atomic
second.) To speed up a clock by 45,900 ns/day, which corresponds to
(roughly) 459,000 cesium transitions per day, we just instruct the clock to
count 459,000 fewer transitions to mark one day of exactly 86,400 seconds.
And to reverse that rate correction after launch, we just reverse the
instructions to the counter of atomic seconds.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, if we change the
definition in the counter for how many transitions make one second, the
clock "ticking" rate will change. And that has nothing to do with speed,
potential, Doppler shifts, or path lengths.
> [Marcel]: It is well known that accelerations, even enormous, don't affect
> the tick rate of clocks. So, why should the small Earth's gravitational
> field affect it. This seems to me a contradiction.
Examine the PowerPoint presentation referenced above. Neither
gravitational force nor acceleration from any cause can affect clock rates.
Yet those same clocks are very sensitive to the speed and strength of the
local gravitational *potential* field. GR will explain this in terms of
curved spacetime. But a simpler physical model is simply the slowing of
electromagnetic signals (including those in the inner workings of clocks) in
a denser light-carrying medium (now called "elysium"). Gravity makes elysium
denser near large masses, and motion makes elysium effectively denser by
encountering more of it per unit time. Denser elysium slows all
electromagnetic phenomena.
Whether you like this analogy or not, it should be evident that
sensible physical reasons do exist to explain why potential and speed can
change clocks while force and acceleration cannot.
> [Marcel]: contrarily to what they claimed, Hafele & Keating could not
> observe significative time differences between the flying and ground
> clocks after the former ones were brought back to the ground. Needless to
> add that their experiment had a lot of experimental and even systematic
> errors sources
You should not care because each later experiment got the same
result with better precision (C.O. Alley's plane flights, the first clock
launched on the Vessot rocket, GPS, and GLONASS). GPS is a thousand times
more precise than H&K's experiment, and it is repeated daily all over the
world.
It is important to accept nature as it is, and not to try to
force nature to conform to our theories. There is simply no room left for
doubt by any educated person that atomic clocks slow down by large and
significant amounts when they change speed or potential.
Once you accept the experimental facts, you can be invaluable in
the ongoing discussion of whether SR, LR, or something else best describes
those experimental facts. There is, of course, no good reason why the first
theory along must be the final theory. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on replacement astronomy
research at http://metaresearch.org
Phil
Ah, okay, I see where you are coming from. You're right, acceleration
has no relativistic effects whatsoever, BUT, acceleration can affect the
results of experiments in other ways. For example, a light beam
*appears* to bend when seen in an accelerating lab, because the
acceleration moves the lab during the time it takes for light to move
across the lab. In contrast, gravity does not move a stationary lab, but
it really does bend the light, causing the observers in the acceleration
lab free of gravity, and the stationary lab in a gravitational field, to
have the same *results*. In other words, gravity and acceleration affect
the *processes* of experiments in very different ways, but the principle
of equivalence appears to be correct in its claim that these different
ways of affecting the processes cause the *results* to be the same. This
is really, really handy, because it means we can use the simple and
fully understood laws of motion on an accelerating spaceship to
correctly predict the *results* of similar experiments conducted in a
gravitational field. Oddly, physicists do not always take advantage of
this, I have no idea why.
On a spaceship, the acceleration causes the velocity to increase,
causing the spaceship to steadily shrink due to length contraction,
which gives the top of the spaceship a slight "rearward" motion relative
to the bottom as seen by an inertial observer, giving observers in the
top at any particular moment a slightly lower velocity, and with it a
faster time-rate than observers in the bottom of the spaceship.
Similarly, in a gravitational field, we get the same results, although
for very different reasons.
>
> Consequently, contrarily to what they claimed, Hafele & Keating could
> not observe significative time differences between the flying and
> ground clocks after the former ones were brought back to the ground.
> Needless to add that their experiment had a lot of experimental and
> even systematic errors sources (They said themselves that "the number
> of
> measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis", whatever
> "good" means. Perhaps that their analysis could not be considered
> as good?).
Their experiment could perhaps be flawed, or simply too inaccurate to be
meaningful, but the other experiments, the one that put a hydrogen maser
on a Scout rocket, or maybe the Pound-Rebka experiment, were very
accurate, and showed that objects deep in a gravitational field do
indeed have a lower/slower time-rate.
Phil
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
>>Phil
>
>
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
A plausible explanation is that the rate of the orbiting clocks is not
modified. If those clocks were not adjusted, one would observe
- a blue shift due to difference of gravitational potentials between
the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons gain potential
energy (1), partly compensated by
- a redshift of the signals due to their travel along the hypothenuse
of an approximately right-angled triangle whose other sides are
vt (v is the orbital velocity) and ct, where t is the time that
the signals would need to cover the satellites altitude.
Indeed, for a satellite observer, the signal travels a distance
Rs - Re in a time t' = (Rs-Re)/c.
(Rs is the orbital radius, Re is the Earth's radius).
For an Earth observer, the signal follows the hypothenuse ct
of a right-angled triangle whose other sides are vs*t and
Rs-Re = ct'.
Hence, c^2*t^2 = vs^2*t^2 + c^2*t'^2, and
t' = t * sqrt(1-vs^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2)
(Me is the Earth's mass, G the gravitational constant)
Iow, a satellite clock *appears* to tick slower by a factor
sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to a ground clock.
Consequently, the frequency of the received signal is reduced by
the factor sqrt(1-GMe/Rs*c^2) relatively to the frequency of the
emitted signal.
Marcel Luttgens
(1) Excerpt from Steven Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology,
1972, pp. 84-85:
"Incidentally, the gravitational red shift of light rising
from a lower to a higher gravitational potential can to
some extent be understood as a consequence of quantum
theory, energy conservation, and the "Weak" Principle
of Equivalence.
When a photon is produced at point 1 by some heavy
nonrelativistic apparatus, an observer in a locally
inertial coordinate system moving with the apparatus
will see its internal energy and hence its inertial
mass change by an amount related to the photon frequency
Nu1 he observes, that is, by
Delta m1 = - h Nu1
where h = 6.625 x 10^-27 erg sec is Plank's constant.
Suppose that the photon is then absorbed at point 2 by
a second heavy apparatus; an observer in a freely
falling system will see the apparatus change in inertial
mass by an amount related to the photon frequency
Nu2 he observes, that is, by
Delta m2 = h Nu2
However, the total internal plus gravitational potential
energy of the two pieces of apparatus must be the same
before and after these events, so
0 = Delta m1 + Phi1 Delta m1 + Delta m2 + Phi2 Delta m2
and therefore
Nu2/Nu1 = (1 + Phi1) / (1+Phi2) ~ 1 + Phi1 - Phi2
in agreement with our previous result. (Also, it makes
no difference whether the photon frequencies are measured
in locally inertial systems, because the gravitational
field in any other frame will affect the rate of the observer's
standard clock in the same way as it affects the Nu's. )
This result can be interpreted as saying that a photon
in a gravitational field has "kinetic energy" hv and
"potential energy" hvPhi, their sum remaining constant.
However, I have insisted on including a nonrelativistic
emitter and absorber in the above calculation, because
the concept of gravitational potential energy for a photon
is otherwise without foundation.
This derivation rests on the Principle of Equivalence
in two respects:
It assumes that the change in gravitational mass of the
apparatus equals the change in its inertial mass and
hence its internal energ:y; and it also assumes that
in a freely falling frame the relation between photon
energy and frequency is unaffected by the presence of
gravitational fields. Hence even if we suppose that
the Eotvös-Dicke experiments could improve to an
unlimited accuracy,and that gravitational mass were
found to equal inertial mass exactly, still there
would be some point in verifying the gravitational
red shift of spectral lines as an independent test
of the Principle of Equivalency."
> >
> > Marcel
> >
> >
> >
> >>Phil
> >
> >
bz
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
>
False. The orbiting clocks are resychronized with a network of ground
stations on a regular basis.
As your primary assumption is wrong, all of your conclusions based upon it
are also wrong.
Randy Poe
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
> A plausible explanation is that the rate of the orbiting clocks is not
> modified. If those clocks were not adjusted, one would observe
>
> - a blue shift due to difference of gravitational potentials between
> the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons gain potential
> energy (1), partly compensated by
Your "gravitational potential" expression assumes that a
photon experiences a gravitational force equal to
G*Mearth*m/R^2 where m = hf/c^2.
This contradicts experiment, which says that if the photon
experiences gravitational force, it is at least 22 orders of magnitude
less than that.
Your "alternate theory" contradicts the experimental record.
- Randy
Sue...
bz wrote:
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1149160315.344858.86750
> @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> > additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
> >
>
> False. The orbiting clocks are resychronized with a network of ground
> stations on a regular basis.
>
> As your primary assumption is wrong, all of your conclusions based upon it
> are also wrong.
They are not readjusted for the preset for the *so called*
gravitational redshift. If a stable clock were returned to
earth, the inverse shift would be observed.
I don't agree with the use of the word 'synchronized' either
but I understand what is meant... (and I think you do too).
I won't accuse a semantic argument, but you can't dismiss
everything on what appears... to me a least, the same as
semantics. It is hard to choose a better word.
"Interpretation of Grav Redshift"
http://arxiv.abs/pdf/physics/9907017
Sue...
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
bz wrote:
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1149160315.344858.86750
> @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> > additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
> >
>
> False. The orbiting clocks are resychronized with a network of ground
> stations on a regular basis.
>
> As your primary assumption is wrong, all of your conclusions based upon it
> are also wrong.
>
You have just demonstrated your ignorance!
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Sue... wrote:
> bz wrote:
> > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1149160315.344858.86750
> > @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> > > additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
> > >
> >
> > False. The orbiting clocks are resychronized with a network of ground
> > stations on a regular basis.
> >
> > As your primary assumption is wrong, all of your conclusions based upon it
> > are also wrong.
>
> They are not readjusted for the preset for the *so called*
> gravitational redshift. If a stable clock were returned to
> earth, the inverse shift would be observed.
Thank you.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Randy Poe wrote:
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> > additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
> > A plausible explanation is that the rate of the orbiting clocks is not
> > modified. If those clocks were not adjusted, one would observe
> >
> > - a blue shift due to difference of gravitational potentials between
> > the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons gain potential
> > energy (1), partly compensated by
>
> Your "gravitational potential" expression assumes that a
> photon experiences a gravitational force equal to
> G*Mearth*m/R^2 where m = hf/c^2.
????????
Marcel Luttgens
Randy Poe
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > All "pre-launch" adjusted clocks remain synchronized, which excludes
> > > additive time differences and falsifies the H&K observations.
> > > A plausible explanation is that the rate of the orbiting clocks is not
> > > modified. If those clocks were not adjusted, one would observe
> > >
> > > - a blue shift due to difference of gravitational potentials between
> > > the satellites and the Earth surface (the photons gain potential
> > > energy (1), partly compensated by
> >
> > Your "gravitational potential" expression assumes that a
> > photon experiences a gravitational force equal to
> > G*Mearth*m/R^2 where m = hf/c^2.
>
> ????????
Aren't you familiar with your own theory?
You wrote this:
> > > 1) The signal will gain a potential energy Ep
> > > (cf. Gravitation and Cosmology by St. Weinberg,1972, pp 84, 85)
> > > Ep = m(ph) * gm * (Rs-Re), where
> > > gm = G * Mearth / (Rs * Re)
> > > m(ph) = hNu(s)/c^2
> > > (m(ph) = "mass" of a photon of initial frequency Nu(s))
The gravitational potential energy of the photon is -G*Mearth*m/R
if and only if the gravitational force experienced by the photon
is G*Mearth*m/R^2.
The term you are using for m is, as I said, hf/c^2.
As I said, the above expression for Ep is inconsistent with a huge
body of experimental work by many orders of magnitude.
- Randy
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
What I don't understand is your R. I presume it is the Earth radius.
Then, how can a photon exist at the Earth surface?
My formula applies to a light signal, not to a non-existent photon at
rest.
Marcel Luttgens
Paul B. Andersen
> I received an E-mail from somebody I don't know. I tried to send him
> (her)
> a reponse, but the address seemed to be false.
>
> Here are my comments :
>
> You are perfectly right. If the ground clocks and the satellite clocks
> emit the same frequency Nu1, the received signal from the satellite
> clocks will be Nu2<>Nu1, unless the satellites clocks are "adjusted
> *once* pre-launch for the predicted relativity effects" (leaving aside
> small periodic adjustments). Then Nu2=Nu1, an quasi-permanent equality.
>
> The classical explanation is indeed that "the satellite clocks speed up
> because they are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and slow
> down because they are moving faster than objects on the Earth's
> surface". One could as well consider that the moving clocks and
> the Earth clocks keep ticking at the same rate, but the frequency of
> the signals emitted by the satellite clocks are *observed* to be
> blue-shifted by a gain of potential energy, and red-shifted by the
> longer
> path travelled by the signal when observed from Earth. The pre-launch
> adjustment of the frequency of the satellite signals cancel the net
> effect for the Earth observer.
You are rather confused.
The (1+4.4647*10^-10) frequency shift is NOT what is observed by
a stationary observer on the ground. If you measure the frequency
of the received signal from a satellite passing over your head,
this signal will be blue shifted by ca.(1+5*10^-7) as it rises above
the horizon, and will be red shifted by ca.(1-5*10^-7) right before it
goes below the horizon on the other side. Due to this Doppler shift
which is a thousand times bigger than the relativistic effect, it
is practically impossible to measure the latter by frequency
measurements on the ground.
I will in the following assume that the satellite clock is
NOT "GR-corrected". That is, it runs at its normal, proper, intrinsic
rate. (Like the very first GPS-satellite did before the correction
was switched on.)
The rate of the satellite clock is compared to the rate of
the ground clock like this:
The satellite clock counts the "ticks" from the frequency standard
(like any clock does). At a certain position on its orbit, it transmits
the satellite clock time to the ground. This is repeated at a later
time, after a number of orbits. (The only uncorrected satellite clock
was running for 20 days and 40 orbits).
The observer on the ground has then the proper time measured by
the satellite to go the 40 orbits, and can compare this proper time
to the proper time measured by the ground clock.
So what's clear and proven is:
The proper time measured by the satellite between two specific
events is longer than than the proper time measured by a ground
clock between the same two events by the factor (1+4.4647*10^-10).
The GR explanation for this is that the satellite's world line
between the events is longer than the world line of the ground
lock between the same two events. The reason for that is the curvature
of space-time (and the motion of the satellites and the rotation of the Earth.)
(This is really a slight simplification because it is not really the same
two events, but two pair of events which are simultaneous in
the GPS-frame of reference.)
Note that two proper times are measured and compared,
and the "observed rate difference" is calculated as a necessary
consequence of the different proper times.
>
> It is well known that accelerations, even enormous, don't affect the
> tick rate of clocks. So, why should the small Earth's gravitational
> field affect it. This seems to me a contradiction.
The Earth's gravitational field affects the curvature of space-time.
> Consequently, contrarily to what they claimed, Hafele & Keating could
> not observe significative time differences between the flying and
> ground clocks after the former ones were brought back to the ground.
> Needless to add that their experiment had a lot of experimental and
> even systematic errors sources (They said themselves that "the number
> of
> measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis", whatever
> "good" means. Perhaps that their analysis could not be considered
> as good?).
Consequently, the gravitational field of the Earth, the motion
of the planes, and the rotation of the Earth will affect the lengths
of the different world lines in question.
But why care so much about the H&K experiment?
Several other experiments are done showing the same effect
with much better precision.
GPS, of course, and then there are the Alley experiment,
the Vessot (gravity probe A) and the flight experiments
described here:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
see chapter 5.
Paul
Sue...
Spoken like a true blue graduate of the Tom Roberts school
of common view time transfer. Look down, observe the rotation
of the earth and divide by zero where convenient.
Sheesh!
http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
Sue...