Post #5: What Newbies Need to Know About SR
kenseto
compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
observed frame also concludes that the original
observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
between relative frames is known as mutual time
dilation.
However, the concept of mutual time dilation (or reciprocity)
is refuted by the GPS clock when it is compared to
the ground station clocks as follows:
The GR effect: A GPS clock is 45 us/day running fast.
The SR effect: A GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
The combine GR/SR effects is 38 us/day running fast.
This means that from the ground observer's point of view
the SR effect on the GPS clock is that it is running slow.
However from the GPS observer's point of view the SR
effect on the ground clock is that it is running fast. This
refuted the concept of mutual time dilation (or reciprocity).
Ken Seto
Stephen Speicher
> SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> compared to the observer's clock.
No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
> The guy in the
> observed frame also concludes that the original
> observer's clock is running slow.
No. That is what Ken Seto concludes, not SR.
The only thing which "Newbies Need to Know" is that Ken Seto is a
physics illiterate who does not, and never will, understand
relativity.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Centauri
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:v5qki73...@corp.supernews.com...
Ignoring time dilation effects due to relative motion, from the perspective
of the observer sitting on the GPS satellite, doesn't the clock on the
surface of the Earth run slower (according to GR) due to gravitational time
dilation?
Regards,
Alfred
kenseto
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who think that SR is a religion. An idiot who
doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget
who can't comprehend beyond what was taught in
school. An imbecile wh follows the real experts
around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An asshole who will attack
anybody who disagrees with any SR assertions.
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
>
> > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > compared to the observer's clock.
>
> No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
So what does SR says about the observed clock.
>
> > The guy in the
> > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > observer's clock is running slow.
>
> No. That is what Ken Seto concludes, not SR.
So what does SR conclude from the observed frame's
point of view?
>
> The only thing which "Newbies Need to Know" is that Ken Seto is a
> physics illiterate who does not, and never will, understand
> relativity.
The only thing thew Newbie need to know is that you are a runt of the SR
experts.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ipd7a.75222$fw1....@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
Did you read my post? The GR effect: A GPS clock is 45 us/day running fast.
Ken Seto
Stephen Speicher
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > compared to the observer's clock.
> >
> > No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
>
> So what does SR says about the observed clock.
>
That depends on the circumstances, which you did not provide.
You made a general statement, void of specifics, and therefore
essentially meaningless in regard to what "SR asserts."
> > > The guy in the
> > > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > > observer's clock is running slow.
> >
> > No. That is what Ken Seto concludes, not SR.
>
> So what does SR conclude from the observed frame's
> point of view?
That depends on the nature of the frame from which the
observation is being made, as well as dependence on the dynamics
of what is being observed. You specified nothing about either of
these two, and therefore your statement about what SR "concludes"
is absolutely meaningless.
> >
> > The only thing which "Newbies Need to Know" is that Ken Seto is a
> > physics illiterate who does not, and never will, understand
> > relativity.
>
> The only thing thew Newbie need to know is that you are a runt of the SR
> experts.
>
Perhaps that is so, but that has nothing to do with the fact that
right up above you made meaningless assertions and drew
meaningless conclusions, supposedly in the name of a theory,
special relativity, of which you know nothing about.
Alfred Centauri
Yup, I read your post which is why I asked the question. I'm still unsure
about what you are claiming. But, if it is to much trouble for you to
clarify for me what you are claiming then just say so and I won't bother
reading any more of your posts.
Regards,
Alfred
David McAnally
>On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
>> SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
>> compared to the observer's clock.
>No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
>> The guy in the
>> observed frame also concludes that the original
>> observer's clock is running slow.
>No. That is what Ken Seto concludes, not SR.
>The only thing which "Newbies Need to Know" is that Ken Seto is a
>physics illiterate who does not, and never will, understand
>relativity.
This is just a quick reminder that Stephen is discussing this with Ken
"Frequency drops off with distance and amplitude doesn't" Seto.
David McAnally
--------------
shuba
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
Slow night?
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:42:54 -0800
Or a slow morning? Your clock appears to be 12 hours worth of
light path rod length math ratios behind the times. This could
be a result of mutual time dilation, but it is more likely a
consequence of dual time mutilation.
---Tim Shuba---
Stephen Speicher
Yes, this is my annual trek into SetoLand. All year I never read
his posts, but occasionally mock him through others who quote
him. But, once a year, it is nice to probe directly into the
depths -- you never know what you can find.
Usually he just gets scared, and then says he doesn't speak with
the runts of SR, and goes along his merry way, dodging the nets
of the men in white coats as they try to capture and return him
to the institution.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
>
> Slow night?
>
Once in a while us SR runts get a chance to talk with the Big
Kahuana.
> > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:42:54 -0800
>
> Or a slow morning? Your clock appears to be 12 hours worth of
> light path rod length math ratios behind the times. This could
> be a result of mutual time dilation, but it is more likely a
> consequence of dual time mutilation.
>
Yes, thanks. I just fixed it. Again. :(
I think it had something to do with not having enough Absolute
seconds of Absolute time. Absolutely.
kenseto
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > > compared to the observer's clock.
> > >
> > > No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
> >
> > So what does SR says about the observed clock.
> >
>
> That depends on the circumstances, which you did not provide.
> You made a general statement, void of specifics, and therefore
> essentially meaningless in regard to what "SR asserts."
Hey asshole....Here's my complete statement:
_____________________________________
SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
observed frame also concludes that the original
observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
between relative frames is known as mutual time
dilation.
_____________________________________
Notice the last sentence specified that the reciprocity
is between relative frames and that this reciprocity is
known as mutual time dilation. So you still claim that SR
doesn't say that?
>
> > > > The guy in the
> > > > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > > > observer's clock is running slow.
> > >
> > > No. That is what Ken Seto concludes, not SR.
> >
> > So what does SR conclude from the observed frame's
> > point of view?
>
> That depends on the nature of the frame from which the
> observation is being made, as well as dependence on the dynamics
> of what is being observed. You specified nothing about either of
> these two, and therefore your statement about what SR "concludes"
> is absolutely meaningless.
So are you saying that SR doen't claim mutual time dilation (reciprocity)??
>
> > >
> > > The only thing which "Newbies Need to Know" is that Ken Seto is a
> > > physics illiterate who does not, and never will, understand
> > > relativity.
> >
> > The only thing thew Newbie need to know is that you are a runt of the
SR
> > experts.
> >
>
> Perhaps that is so, but that has nothing to do with the fact that
> right up above you made meaningless assertions and drew
> meaningless conclusions, supposedly in the name of a theory,
> special relativity, of which you know nothing about.
Hey asshole...You snipped out the sentence that specified
what SR asserts.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:10463148...@eeyore.dstc.edu.au...
Hey stupid...I suggest that you go learn some real physics
before you give me any shit. If you hear a crowd clapping
hands the number of claps per unit time (frequency) that
you hear decrease with increasing distance...this you interpreted
as amplitude decreases with increasing distance. The amplitude
of each clap that you hear remains the same.
Ken Seto
kenseto
What I am saying:
1. The SR effect:
The GPS clock always runs slow compared to the ground clock. This means that
the ground clock always runs fast compared to the GPS clock. This means that
the SR concept of mutual time dilation is refuted.
2. The GR effect:
The GPS clock always runs fast compared to the ground clock, This means that
the ground clock always runs slow compared to the GPS clock. This means that
there is no reciprocity between the ground clock and the GPS clock.
.Ken Seto
Alfred Centauri
Thanks for the clarification.
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:v5s88or...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:XVe7a.49306$ED.4...@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
<snip>
> What I am saying:
> 1. The SR effect:
> The GPS clock always runs slow compared to the ground clock. This means
that
> the ground clock always runs fast compared to the GPS clock. This means
that
> the SR concept of mutual time dilation is refuted.
Wait! I thought the SR effect (that is, the prediction made by SR) is that
the GPS clock runs slow as observed from the ground and that the ground
clock runs slow as observed from the satellite.
> 2. The GR effect:
> The GPS clock always runs fast compared to the ground clock, This means
that
> the ground clock always runs slow compared to the GPS clock. This means
that
> there is no reciprocity between the ground clock and the GPS clock.
>
Right. So there are two components. The predicted gravitation time
dilation component is not reciprocal but the predicted time dilation due to
relative motion component is reciprocal. When the two effects are added,
the GPS clock does indeed run faster than the ground clock (or the ground
clock does indeed run slower than the GPS clock). Since GR extends SR, I
assume that GR's prediction includes both the gravitation and relative
motion time dilation effects which together should not be reciprocal. What
do you think?
Regards,
Alfred
John Zinni
Oh!!! That's good!!!
Does this mean that if I sit near the stage at a philharmonic choir concert
they will sound like "The Chipmunks"???
--
Cheers
John Zinni
kenseto
Ooop I goofed....I guess you can call me stupid too. The amplitude of a clap
also decrease with increasing distance. Why?? The high frequency components
of a clap become extinct with increasing distance.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"John Zinni" <j_z...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Tmq7a.7328$VG.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I stand corrected. The amplitude of a clap
kenseto
> Ken:
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:v5s88or...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:XVe7a.49306$ED.4...@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > What I am saying:
> > 1. The SR effect:
> > The GPS clock always runs slow compared to the ground clock. This means
> that
> > the ground clock always runs fast compared to the GPS clock. This means
> that
> > the SR concept of mutual time dilation is refuted.
>
> Wait! I thought the SR effect (that is, the prediction made by SR) is
that
> the GPS clock runs slow as observed from the ground and that the ground
> clock runs slow as observed from the satellite.
That's the point. SR predicts that the ground clock is
running slow but the actual correction is that the ground
clock is running fast. Therefore from the GPS point of view
the ground clock is runing fast. This is why I said that the GPS refuted the
SR claim of mutual time dilation.
>
> > 2. The GR effect:
> > The GPS clock always runs fast compared to the ground clock, This means
> that
> > the ground clock always runs slow compared to the GPS clock. This means
> that
> > there is no reciprocity between the ground clock and the GPS clock.
> >
>
> Right. So there are two components. The predicted gravitation time
> dilation component is not reciprocal but the predicted time dilation due
to
> relative motion component is reciprocal.
No....both components are not reciprocal.
>When the two effects are added,
> the GPS clock does indeed run faster than the ground clock (or the ground
> clock does indeed run slower than the GPS clock). Since GR extends SR, I
> assume that GR's prediction includes both the gravitation and relative
> motion time dilation effects which together should not be reciprocal.
What
> do you think?
Actual SR correction shows that the effect is not reciprocal. The GPS clock
is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock.
Ken Seto
John Zinni
Huh???
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Alfred Centauri
But in your initial post, you claim that the GPS clock is running 38us/day
fast as compared to a ground clock. Why does the ground clock appear fast
from the GPS point of view?
> >
> > > 2. The GR effect:
> > > The GPS clock always runs fast compared to the ground clock, This
means
> > that
> > > the ground clock always runs slow compared to the GPS clock. This
means
> > that
> > > there is no reciprocity between the ground clock and the GPS clock.
> > >
> >
> > Right. So there are two components. The predicted gravitation time
> > dilation component is not reciprocal but the predicted time dilation due
> to
> > relative motion component is reciprocal.
>
> No....both components are not reciprocal.
>
Are you saying that SR does not predict that time dilation due to relative
motion is reciprocal?
> >When the two effects are added,
> > the GPS clock does indeed run faster than the ground clock (or the
ground
> > clock does indeed run slower than the GPS clock). Since GR extends SR,
I
> > assume that GR's prediction includes both the gravitation and relative
> > motion time dilation effects which together should not be reciprocal.
> What
> > do you think?
>
> Actual SR correction shows that the effect is not reciprocal. The GPS
clock
> is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock.
>
> Ken Seto
>
Wait! Your first post said the GPS clock is running fast (38us/day)
compared to the ground clock. Which is it - faster or slower?
Regards,
Alfred
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > > > compared to the observer's clock.
> > > >
> > > > No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
> > >
> > > So what does SR says about the observed clock.
> > >
> >
> > That depends on the circumstances, which you did not provide.
> > You made a general statement, void of specifics, and therefore
> > essentially meaningless in regard to what "SR asserts."
>
> Hey asshole....Here's my complete statement:
Perhaps you have not noticed -- but others have -- that when you
get scared and anxious, you then respond with filthy insults. You
might want to think about that. Or, not.
> _____________________________________
> SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
> observed frame also concludes that the original
> observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
> between relative frames is known as mutual time
> dilation.
> _____________________________________
> Notice the last sentence specified that the reciprocity
> is between relative frames and that this reciprocity is
> known as mutual time dilation. So you still claim that SR
> doesn't say that?
>
I say again, that depends upon the circumstances, and you did not
provide enough specifics to make a determination either way.
There are circumstances in which both observers will note the
other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and there are
circumstances in which that is not the case. Your own lack of
precision leads to ambiguity in what you proposed. If you
understood relativity you would grasp the need for precision of
formulation far exceeding the comic book-like scenarios which you
typically provide. I would suggest for you a good non-technical
introduction to the subject, such as Taylor and Wheeler's
"Spacetime Physics."
Stephen Speicher
John Zinni
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
Now THAT'S an interesting link!!!
There's actually a "Directory of Cool Chipmunk Websites".
Who-da-thought??? :)
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Bilge
Even better. If you want to hear the "Moonlight Sonata in c# Minor"
played in b-flat, you can just move a few rows back. I think ken's
premise is based upon the observation that rows are often designated
A, B, C, D,... and assumed the first row was calibrated to A = 440 Hz.
kenseto
But that's the combined effect of SR/GR. For the GPS clock:
--the GR effect is 45 us/day running fast
--the SR effect is 7 us/day running slow (this means that the ground clock
is running fast)
--The combined effect is 38us/day running fast.
>Why does the ground clock appear fast
> from the GPS point of view?
Because the GPS clock accelerated to a higher state of absolute motion.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > > > > compared to the observer's clock.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
> > > >
> > > > So what does SR says about the observed clock.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That depends on the circumstances, which you did not provide.
> > > You made a general statement, void of specifics, and therefore
> > > essentially meaningless in regard to what "SR asserts."
> >
> > Hey asshole....Here's my complete statement:
>
> Perhaps you have not noticed -- but others have -- that when you
> get scared and anxious, you then respond with filthy insults. You
> might want to think about that. Or, not.
The reason I used insult is that the only thing that you can understand. You
know damn well what I meant
when I said "This reciprocity between relative frames is
known as mutual time dilation."
>
> > _____________________________________
> > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
> > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
> > between relative frames is known as mutual time
> > dilation.
> > _____________________________________
> > Notice the last sentence specified that the reciprocity
> > is between relative frames and that this reciprocity is
> > known as mutual time dilation. So you still claim that SR
> > doesn't say that?
> >
>
> I say again, that depends upon the circumstances, and you did not
> provide enough specifics to make a determination either way.
I did. I said between relative frames and that this reciprocity is known as
mutual time dilation. SR says (A and B are in relative motion) A sees B's
clock runs slow and B sees A's clock runs slow.
> There are circumstances in which both observers will note the
> other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and there are
> circumstances in which that is not the case. Your own lack of
> precision leads to ambiguity in what you proposed.
I didn't propose anything. I just merely restated what SR says about mutual
time dilation. If you disagree with what I said why don't you give us the
correct description for mutual time dilation.
>If you
> understood relativity you would grasp the need for precision of
> formulation far exceeding the comic book-like scenarios which you
> typically provide. I would suggest for you a good non-technical
> introduction to the subject, such as Taylor and Wheeler's
> "Spacetime Physics."
So are you saying that A sees B's clock runs slow and B sees A's clock runs
slow have other precise meaning than what it normally mean? If so please
enlighten us.
Ken Seto
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
> > > > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > > > > > compared to the observer's clock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. that is what Ken Seto asserts, not SR.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what does SR says about the observed clock.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That depends on the circumstances, which you did not provide.
> > > > You made a general statement, void of specifics, and therefore
> > > > essentially meaningless in regard to what "SR asserts."
> > >
> > > Hey asshole....Here's my complete statement:
> >
> > Perhaps you have not noticed -- but others have -- that when you
> > get scared and anxious, you then respond with filthy insults. You
> > might want to think about that. Or, not.
>
> The reason I used insult is that the only thing that you can understand.
I doubt that even you could really believe such a
rationalization.
> You
> know damn well what I meant
> when I said "This reciprocity between relative frames is
> known as mutual time dilation."
>
Science is not a guessing game. If you want to communicate in
science you must be precise. You still are unable to do so.
> >
> > > _____________________________________
> > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
> > > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > > observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
> > > between relative frames is known as mutual time
> > > dilation.
> > > _____________________________________
> > > Notice the last sentence specified that the reciprocity
> > > is between relative frames and that this reciprocity is
> > > known as mutual time dilation. So you still claim that SR
> > > doesn't say that?
> > >
> >
> > I say again, that depends upon the circumstances, and you did not
> > provide enough specifics to make a determination either way.
>
> I did. I said between relative frames and that this reciprocity is known as
> mutual time dilation. SR says (A and B are in relative motion) A sees B's
> clock runs slow and B sees A's clock runs slow.
>
But, once again, your statement is not specific enough. There are
circumstances where it may be true, and circumstances where it
may not.
> > There are circumstances in which both observers will note the
> > other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and there are
> > circumstances in which that is not the case. Your own lack of
> > precision leads to ambiguity in what you proposed.
>
> I didn't propose anything. I just merely restated what SR says about mutual
> time dilation.
No. You are saying what Ken Seto thinks, which most all of the
time is something different from what the actual theory states.
> If you disagree with what I said why don't you give us the
> correct description for mutual time dilation.
>
Sorry, but you are the one who is making the assertions. If you
can't at least get the simple facts straight on your own, then
perhaps you should not pretend that you know what you are talking
about, and spend your time learning the theory instead of trying
to disprove it. I have suggested "Spacetime Physics" for you,
which is a good introduction for non-technical people such as
yourself.
> > If you understood relativity you would grasp the need for
> > precision of formulation far exceeding the comic book-like
> > scenarios which you typically provide. I would suggest for
> > you a good non-technical introduction to the subject, such as
> > Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics."
>
> So are you saying that A sees B's clock runs slow and B sees A's clock runs
> slow have other precise meaning than what it normally mean? If so please
> enlighten us.
>
No Ken, what I am saying is that you have not specified the
circumstances precisely enough to make a sensible prediction as
to what SR says.
kenseto
I do believe such a rationalization. Why? Because that's the only thing you
recignized to be precise.
>
> > You
> > know damn well what I meant
> > when I said "This reciprocity between relative frames is
> > known as mutual time dilation."
> >
>
> Science is not a guessing game. If you want to communicate in
> science you must be precise. You still are unable to do so.
So why are you keeping us guessing what precisely is SR saying?
>
> > >
> > > > _____________________________________
> > > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > > compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
> > > > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > > > observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
> > > > between relative frames is known as mutual time
> > > > dilation.
> > > > _____________________________________
> > > > Notice the last sentence specified that the reciprocity
> > > > is between relative frames and that this reciprocity is
> > > > known as mutual time dilation. So you still claim that SR
> > > > doesn't say that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I say again, that depends upon the circumstances, and you did not
> > > provide enough specifics to make a determination either way.
> >
> > I did. I said between relative frames and that this reciprocity is known
as
> > mutual time dilation. SR says (A and B are in relative motion) A sees
B's
> > clock runs slow and B sees A's clock runs slow.
> >
>
> But, once again, your statement is not specific enough. There are
> circumstances where it may be true, and circumstances where it
> may not.
Why don't you give us the prtecise statement instead of beating around the
bush??
>
> > > There are circumstances in which both observers will note the
> > > other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and there are
> > > circumstances in which that is not the case. Your own lack of
> > > precision leads to ambiguity in what you proposed.
> >
> > I didn't propose anything. I just merely restated what SR says about
mutual
> > time dilation.
>
> No. You are saying what Ken Seto thinks, which most all of the
> time is something different from what the actual theory states.
So what is the theory states? So far you are just giving us a bunch of
nonsense.
>
> > If you disagree with what I said why don't you give us the
> > correct description for mutual time dilation.
> >
>
> Sorry, but you are the one who is making the assertions. If you
> can't at least get the simple facts straight on your own, then
> perhaps you should not pretend that you know what you are talking
> about, and spend your time learning the theory instead of trying
> to disprove it. I have suggested "Spacetime Physics" for you,
> which is a good introduction for non-technical people such as
> yourself.
You are just a runt of the SR experts who pretends know it all but reveal
none. <shrugg, shrugg>
Ken Seto
Stephen Speicher
But unfortunately, for yourself, you are unable to grasp the
meaning of precision in words and concepts, and, consequently,
you are unable to grasp your own numerous errors. This lack of
self-awareness on your part is something you can confront, or
not. You have a choice: you can refuse to see yourself as you
are, or you can take the voluminous criticisms of your every post
as a serious indicator that you have some serious work to do.
This is your choice.
> >
> > > You
> > > know damn well what I meant
> > > when I said "This reciprocity between relative frames is
> > > known as mutual time dilation."
> > >
> >
> > Science is not a guessing game. If you want to communicate in
> > science you must be precise. You still are unable to do so.
>
> So why are you keeping us guessing what precisely is SR saying?
Why do you use the term "us?" I would suspect that most everyone
else -- even the standard crackpots -- know quite well why your
formulations are so ambiguous. It is _your_ problem, not a
problem for everyone else, and it is _you_ who must learn to fix
it. Which is the reason why I have suggested "Spacetime Physics"
for you to read; it is a good introduction to the subject for
non-technical people such as yourself.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > _____________________________________
> > > > > SR asserts that the observed clock always runs slow
> > > > > compared to the observer's clock. The guy in the
> > > > > observed frame also concludes that the original
> > > > > observer's clock is running slow. This reciprocity
> > > > > between relative frames is known as mutual time
> > > > > dilation.
> > > > > _____________________________________
> > > > > Notice the last sentence specified that the reciprocity
> > > > > is between relative frames and that this reciprocity is
> > > > > known as mutual time dilation. So you still claim that SR
> > > > > doesn't say that?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I say again, that depends upon the circumstances, and you did not
> > > > provide enough specifics to make a determination either way.
> > >
> > > I did. I said between relative frames and that this reciprocity is known
> as
> > > mutual time dilation. SR says (A and B are in relative motion) A sees
> B's
> > > clock runs slow and B sees A's clock runs slow.
> > >
> >
> > But, once again, your statement is not specific enough. There are
> > circumstances where it may be true, and circumstances where it
> > may not.
>
> Why don't you give us the prtecise statement instead of beating around the
> bush??
I am not "beating around the bush." I am pointing out that
_before_ you attempt to criticize the standard theory it would
behoove you to actually learn it in the first place. You can only
do this with some concentrated mental effort, using a book such
as "Spacetime Physics" as your guide.
> >
> > > > There are circumstances in which both observers will note the
> > > > other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and there are
> > > > circumstances in which that is not the case. Your own lack of
> > > > precision leads to ambiguity in what you proposed.
> > >
> > > I didn't propose anything. I just merely restated what SR says about
> mutual
> > > time dilation.
> >
> > No. You are saying what Ken Seto thinks, which most all of the
> > time is something different from what the actual theory states.
>
> So what is the theory states? So far you are just giving us a bunch of
> nonsense.
There is nothing nonsensical about anything which I said. Again,
my purpose here is not to provide you with the obvious knowledge
that you lack, but rather simply to point out that in your
ignorance your formulations are so imprecise that they lead to
ambiguities, and are therefore not taken seriously. But, you can
fix this problem of your's by reading a decent book on the
subject, such as "Spacetime Physics."
> >
> > > If you disagree with what I said why don't you give us the
> > > correct description for mutual time dilation.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, but you are the one who is making the assertions. If you
> > can't at least get the simple facts straight on your own, then
> > perhaps you should not pretend that you know what you are talking
> > about, and spend your time learning the theory instead of trying
> > to disprove it. I have suggested "Spacetime Physics" for you,
> > which is a good introduction for non-technical people such as
> > yourself.
>
> You are just a runt of the SR experts who pretends know it all but reveal
> none.
Well perhaps you are correct that I am just a runt of the SR
experts, but, even so, a runt such as myself so easily sees the
ambiguities of your imprecise formulations. As to revealing to
you the proper formulations, that is not my purpose. I do not
take it upon my to become your teacher, but only to point out
your desperate need of one. You might try the non-technical
introduction to the subject of relativity authored by Taylor and
Wheeler -- "Spacetime Physics."
<shrugg, shrugg>
>
<atlas, atlas>
kenseto
to defense its validity is in trouble. SR is such a theory.
Ken Seto
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03030...@localhost.localdomain...
Alfred Centauri
> "Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Jdz7a.69974$KZ1....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
<snip>
>>
>>But in your initial post, you claim that the GPS clock is running 38us/day
>>fast as compared to a ground clock.
>
>
> But that's the combined effect of SR/GR. For the GPS clock:
> --the GR effect is 45 us/day running fast
> --the SR effect is 7 us/day running slow (this means that the ground clock
> is running fast)
> --The combined effect is 38us/day running fast.
>
>
>>Why does the ground clock appear fast
>>from the GPS point of view?
>
>
> Because the GPS clock accelerated to a higher state of absolute motion.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
OK - my fault - I didn't use precise enough language in my question.
Let me try again...
I believe that you claim that the GPS clock is really, truly,
unambiguously running 38us fast compared to the ground clock. Do I
believe correctly?
(Insert answer here, please)
Regards,
Alfred
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:Jdz7a.69974$KZ1....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >>But in your initial post, you claim that the GPS clock is running
38us/day
> >>fast as compared to a ground clock.
> >
> >
> > But that's the combined effect of SR/GR. For the GPS clock:
> > --the GR effect is 45 us/day running fast
> > --the SR effect is 7 us/day running slow (this means that the ground
clock
> > is running fast)
> > --The combined effect is 38us/day running fast.
Yes....the combined SR/GR effects on the GPS clock is 38us/day running
fast. This is based on the SR effect of 7us/day running slow and the GR
effect of 45 us/day running fast.
> >
> >
> >>Why does the ground clock appear fast
> >>from the GPS point of view?
> >
> >
> > Because the GPS clock accelerated to a higher state of absolute motion.
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> >
>
> OK - my fault - I didn't use precise enough language in my question.
> Let me try again...
>
> I believe that you claim that the GPS clock is really, truly,
> unambiguously running 38us fast compared to the ground clock. Do I
> believe correctly?
How many time do you have to ask the same question??
>
> (Insert answer here, please)
Yes....the combined SR/GR effects on the GPS clock is 38us/day running
fast. This is based on the SR effect of 7us/day running slow and the GR
effect of 45 us/day running fast.
Ken Seto
Alfred Centauri
Ken:
If the GPS clock is really, truly, unambiguously running fast compared
to the ground clock (as you say above), then your claim that the ground
clock appears fast from the GPS point of view is implies that the ground
clock sends signals from the future to the GPS clock. Don't you see this?
Regards,
Alfred
Stephen Speicher
> Any theory that relies on the shifting meaning of a phrase
> to defense its validity is in trouble. SR is such a theory.
>
But SR does not rely on any shifts in meaning -- the theory
is quite precise. Ken confuses the theory for his own
muddleheaded notions in regard to it.
kenseto
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Any theory that relies on the shifting meaning of a phrase
> > to defense its validity is in trouble. SR is such a theory.
> >
>
> But SR does not rely on any shifts in meaning -- the theory
> is quite precise. Ken confuses the theory for his own
> muddleheaded notions in regard to it.
But SR does depend on shifting meaning. For example
SR says:
A and B are in relative motion.
From A's point of view:
A sees B's clock runs slow. However this assertion does
not mean that clock B accumulates clock seconds slower
than clock A. What it mean is that "time" itself is stretched
in B's frame due to relative motion. This assertion is symmetric.
In other words, observer B can reach the same conclusion
about A's clock. This is known as mutual time dilation.
SR also asserts that the different rate of accumulation of clock seconds of
the observed clock is due to the different world line
of the observed clock. The different world line of an observed
clock is due to relativity of simultaneity (RoS). The problem is:
RoS does not exit although it has the same designed effect as that
when simultaneity is absolute....namely the time interval between
two identical events occurs at different time in different frames.
In the real world,
simultaneity is absolute. In other words, if two events (two
transitions of the Cs atom) in A's frame are simultaneous, two identical
events (two transitions of the Cs atom in B's frame)
in B's frame are also simultraneous. However, the simultaneity
occurs at a different time interval and that's why the accmulation
of clock seconds is different in A's frame compared to the accumulation of
clock second in B's frame. This is just a
complicated way of saying that the rate of a clock is dependent
on the state of its absolute motion.
I hope that you will note that I took the trouble of explaining
to you how clocks behave in the real world.
Ken Seto
kenseto
How many time do I have to tell you that the 38 us/day running fast
is the combined SR/GR effects? For the SR effect alone the GPS clock is 7
us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. This disagees with the SR
assertion of mutual time dilation for the SR effect.
>then your claim that the ground
> clock appears fast from the GPS point of view is implies that the ground
> clock sends signals from the future to the GPS clock. Don't you see this?
It seems that I am not able to get through to you on a simple point. I give
up.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:v66oevf...@corp.supernews.com...
Frankly... I must honestly admit that I do not understand
*anything* of the above explanation. I have tried so many
times... Here again I cannot possibly find out how Seto's
brains work. IMO their is no way to help this person.
How can someone be so confused about something so
simple and not be ashamed? This is incredible.
Is he trolling? Just trying to sell his book?
Title: "The simultaneity occurs at a different time interval."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DiffSimul
Ken, Ken, Ken...
Dirk Vdm
Alfred Centauri
<snip>
> > Ken:
> >
> > If the GPS clock is really, truly, unambiguously running fast compared
> > to the ground clock (as you say above),
>
> How many time do I have to tell you that the 38 us/day running fast
> is the combined SR/GR effects? For the SR effect alone the GPS clock is 7
> us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. This disagees with the
SR
> assertion of mutual time dilation for the SR effect.
>
> >then your claim that the ground
> > clock appears fast from the GPS point of view is implies that the ground
> > clock sends signals from the future to the GPS clock. Don't you see
this?
>
> It seems that I am not able to get through to you on a simple point. I
give
> up.
>
Translation: "Alfred's right, I give up"
> Ken Seto
>
>
Stephen Speicher
I have left your every word intact, including your name at the
end. This is truly outstanding, Ken. I have no real repsonse to
what you wrote -- there is nothing that I could ever say to equal
your own ability to reveal just how much of an incredibly
muddleheaded and ignorant fool you are.
But, it has been fun talking with you again, Ken. Let's do this
in another year, so that I can again check just how fast your
crackpot pulse is beating. Back into the ignore bin for a year
you go, Ken. Careful in there -- it is getting a bit crowded.
Though, please don't feel too great a sense of loss by not being
able to talk with me for another year, since from time to time I
will respond to other's quoting of you with the usual mockery of
your complete and utter nonsense. Bye, bye, Ken.
p.s. Please give my regards to Professor Ian. P. Freely.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=University%20of%20Scunthorpe&hl=en
Stephen Speicher
Well, look at it this way, Dirk. If you ever decide to break up
your "Fumbles" pages into several sub-categories, you can just
put Ken into each of the categories, sight unseen. Ken is what is
known as an "automatic qualifier!"
kenseto
ROTFLOL...Translation:Alfred is an idiot.
kenseto
I don't feel any loss at all. Why? Because all your posts were content free.
In fact I thank you for not wasting anymore of my valuable time.
Ken Seto