The GPS Refutes the SR Claim of Mutual Time Dilation
Ken Seto
the ground station clock. This total relativistic
effect is composed of the follwoing:
The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
For the SR effect:
It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
also means that the ground station clock is always
runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
These facts violates the following claims of SR:
1. Mutual time dilation where two clocks in relative motion
will see each other's clock to run slow.
2. SR's claim that all clock are runs at the same rate
in all frames of reference.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02091...@posting.google.com...
Interesting.
So this would mean that your Doppler Relativity Theory,
which, like you have shown, has "SR as a subset", must
be wrong too.
So this would mean "back to the drawing board".
How sad.
Dirk Vdm
RM Mentock
>
> In real life the GPS clock runs 38 ns/day faster than
> the ground station clock. This total relativistic
> effect is composed of the follwoing:
> The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
> The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
>
> For the SR effect:
> It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
> compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
> also means that the ground station clock is always
> runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
>
> These facts violates the following claims of SR:
> 1. Mutual time dilation where two clocks in relative motion
> will see each other's clock to run slow.
We see them running differently. How is that a violation?
> 2. SR's claim that all clock are runs at the same rate
> in all frames of reference.
Could you expand on that a little, I'm having trouble parsing
it? Thanks.
--
RM Mentock
C. K. Monet, c'est moi
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > In real life the GPS clock runs 38 ns/day faster than
> > the ground station clock. This total relativistic
> > effect is composed of the follwoing:
> > The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
> > The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
> >
> > For the SR effect:
> > It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
> > compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
> > also means that the ground station clock is always
> > runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
> >
> > These facts violates the following claims of SR:
> > 1. Mutual time dilation where two clocks in relative motion
> > will see each other's clock to run slow.
>
> We see them running differently. How is that a violation?
SR mutual time dilation says:
1. the ground clock sees the GPS clock runs slow.
2. The GPS clock sees the ground clock runs slow.
The actual correction for the SR effect says:
1. The ground clock always sees the GPS clock runs slow.
2. The GPS clock always sees the ground clock runs fast.
>
> > 2. SR's claim that all clock are runs at the same rate
> > in all frames of reference.
>
> Could you expand on that a little, I'm having trouble parsing
> it? Thanks.
It is a fact that SR claims that a clock will run at
the same rate in all frames of reference. If not then
a clock second here is not the same as a clock second
there. In other words a clock second is not a unversal
interval of time. This would mean that the speed of light
is not a universal constant as claimed by the SR postulate.
This would destroy SR.
The fact is: the speed of light is not a universal constant
as claimed by SR but rather a constant math ratio as follows:
The light path length of rod (300,000km)/
The absolute time content for a clock second
co-moving with the rod
Please visit my website and click on the the section
entitled "Doppler Relativity Theory" (DRT) for a detail
descritpion of this new concept. BTW, DRT includes SR
as a subset but its equations are valid in all
environments---including gravity. In other words, DRT is
a complete theory of motion whereas SRT is an incomplete
theory of motion.
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken Seto
RM Mentock
> environments---including gravity. In other words, DRT is
> a complete theory of motion whereas SRT is an incomplete
> theory of motion.
Just because SR is incomplete doesn't mean it is destroyed.
Well, OK, maybe it does==but that was done before you were
born. What of it?
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > environments---including gravity. In other words, DRT is
> > a complete theory of motion whereas SRT is an incomplete
> > theory of motion.
>
> Just because SR is incomplete doesn't mean it is destroyed.
Im didn't say that SR is destroyed because it is incomplete.
>
> Well, OK, maybe it does==but that was done before you were
> born. What of it?
The SR math is the same as aether math. The problems are
the bogus SR interpretations---such as: the speed of
light is a universal constant and mutual time and
length dilation. If we get rid of these bogus interpretations
and accept that the speed of light is a constant math ratio
then SR becomes a special case of an aether theory.
Then all the arguments in this NG become irrelevant. :-)
Ken Seto
Robert Kolker
Ken Seto wrote:
>
> The SR math is the same as aether math. The problems are
> the bogus SR interpretations---such as: the speed of
> light is a universal constant and mutual time and
> length dilation.
These are not interpretations. These are basic postulates of STR. They
can be undone if they lead to specific predictions that are refuted by
experiment. STR, though well established by experimental fact, is not
immune from falsification by experiment. In short it is a genuine
scientific theory. It may yet be shown to be wrong, but there is nothing
bogus about it. For example, there is nothing bogus about mechanics, as
Newton proposed it and as expanded and clarified in the 19-th century.
Conditions under which the theory is wrong have been found and the
theory had been modified to deal with effects revealed at near
light-speed velocities. Newton created the archetype or role model of
rational mathematically stated theories about the world. Look unto the
rock from which we were hewn! But Newton was shown to be wrong, in areas
of which he had no knowledge.
No genuine physics theory is immune from refutation. Judging from the
past, it is only a matter of time and new experiences before we find the
limitations of our dearest and most cherished theories. The moral of the
story is not to become too emotionally attached to your favorite theory,
as all theories are at the mercy of -facts- (Say that like a prayer
before your go to bed, and when you wake up!). Nature/Reality does not
care how much we love our theories. Facts Rule, Theories Serve, amen,
selah, world without end.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Paul Cardinale
> In real life the GPS clock runs 38 ns/day faster than
> the ground station clock. This total relativistic
> effect is composed of the follwoing:
> The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
> The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
>
> For the SR effect:
> It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
> compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
> also means that the ground station clock is always
> runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
>
No it doesn't. It's just that the kenseto can't do the math.
The orbits of satellites are non-interial paths; thus the asymmetry of
the SR effects. (Note this is orders of magnitude beyond the
comprehension of the kenseto.)
Paul Cardinale
Ken Seto
full of them. In addition he failed the Mars Lander mission.
Questions:
Why is the GPS clock remains in a non-initial path forever?
What makes an object to follow an inertial path?
What makes an object to follow a non-inertial path?
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > The SR math is the same as aether math. The problems are
> > the bogus SR interpretations---such as: the speed of
> > light is a universal constant and mutual time and
> > length dilation.
>
> These are not interpretations. These are basic postulates of STR.
These are interpretations. Why? There are other interpretations that
explain the same thing:
1. The speed of light is a universal constant can be
replaced by: the speed of light is a constant math ratio.
2. Mutual time and length dilation are not
SR postulates. Besides they are both bogus.
In real life the difference in clock rates between two
relative clocks is due to their different states of
absolute motions. Also in real life the length of a
rod remains the same in all frames of reference. What
is changing is its light path lengths. The light path
length of a rod is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the rod. The light path length of a moving rod
is longer than a stationary rod. This is interpreted as
that a moving rod is contracted.
Ken Seto
Paul Cardinale
> pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > In real life the GPS clock runs 38 ns/day faster than
> > > the ground station clock. This total relativistic
> > > effect is composed of the follwoing:
> > > The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
> > > The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
> > >
> > > For the SR effect:
> > > It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
> > > compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
> > > also means that the ground station clock is always
> > > runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
> > >
> >
> > No it doesn't. It's just that the kenseto can't do the math.
> > The orbits of satellites are non-interial paths; thus the asymmetry of
> > the SR effects. (Note this is orders of magnitude beyond the
> > comprehension of the kenseto.)
> >
> Cardinale is another runt of the SR experts--this NG is
> full of them. In addition he failed the Mars Lander mission.
> Questions:
> Why is the GPS clock remains in a non-initial path forever?
Objects only follow an initial path the first time; after that they
follow subsequent paths.
> What makes an object to follow an inertial path?
Nothing. It follows an inertial path all by itself.
> What makes an object to follow a non-inertial path?
Anything that affects its motion.
Perhaps things will become clear if you try an example (no help from
the peanut gallery):
In an interial frame of reference,
Mr. Nek is at rest at the origin (x=0),
there is an apple at rest at x = 1 lightsecond,
and an orange at rest at x = 1.8 lightsecond.
Mr. Otes is moving in the +x direction at constant 0.8c (with respect
to Mr. Nek).
Let's call the event of Mr. Otes passing the apple "E1".
Let's call the event of Mr. Otes passing the orange "E2".
Using SR, calculate the following:
The amount of time that Mr. Nek observes to elapse on Mr. Otes' clock
from E1 to E2.
The amount of time that Mr. Otes observes to elapse on Mr. Nek's
clock from E1 to E2.
Now we'll change things a bit:
Instead of having Mr Otes move at a constant velocity,
we'll have him decelerating linearly such that
when he passes the apple (event E1) he is moving at 0.9c,
and when he passes the orange (event E2) he is moving at only 0.7c.
(Note that his average velocity is the same as before.)
Once again, using SR, calculate:
The amount of time that Mr. Nek observes to elapse on Mr. Otes' clock
from E1 to E2.
The amount of time that Mr. Otes observes to elapse on Mr. Nek's
clock from E1 to E2.
Now compare the results of the first scenerio to those of the second.
Surprised?
Paul Cardinale
Ken Seto
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > In real life the GPS clock runs 38 ns/day faster than
> > > > the ground station clock. This total relativistic
> > > > effect is composed of the follwoing:
> > > > The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
> > > > The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
> > > >
> > > > For the SR effect:
> > > > It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
> > > > compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
> > > > also means that the ground station clock is always
> > > > runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. It's just that the kenseto can't do the math.
> > > The orbits of satellites are non-interial paths; thus the asymmetry of
> > > the SR effects. (Note this is orders of magnitude beyond the
> > > comprehension of the kenseto.)
> > >
> > Cardinale is another runt of the SR experts--this NG is
> > full of them. In addition he failed the Mars Lander mission.
> > Questions:
> > Why is the GPS clock remains in a non-initial path forever?
>
> Objects only follow an initial path the first time; after that they
> follow subsequent paths.
No wonder you failed the Mars Lander mission.
>
> > What makes an object to follow an inertial path?
>
> Nothing. It follows an inertial path all by itself.
So why is the GPS clock not following an inertial path?
>
> > What makes an object to follow a non-inertial path?
>
> Anything that affects its motion.
Since acceleration will affect the motion of the GPS clock
are you saying that that's why the GPS clock remains
non-inertial forever? Or are you saying that it is non-inertial
forever compared to the ground clock?
What you are really trying to say is that acceleration will
change the world line of the GPS clock and the different world
line will have a different rate of acculmulation of clock time.
Of course this is the same as saying that acceleration will
increase the state of absolute motion of the GPS clock and
the higher state of absolute motion of the GPS clock makes
it run slower than the ground clock.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > In real life the GPS clock runs 38 ns/day faster than
> > > > the ground station clock. This total relativistic
> > > > effect is composed of the follwoing:
> > > > The SR effect: 7 ns/day running slow.
> > > > The GR effect:45 ns/day running fast.
> > > >
> > > > For the SR effect:
> > > > It means that the GPS clock is always running slow
> > > > compared to the Ground station clock. Conversly, it
> > > > also means that the ground station clock is always
> > > > runs fast compared to the satellite clock.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. It's just that the kenseto can't do the math.
> > > The orbits of satellites are non-interial paths; thus the asymmetry of
> > > the SR effects. (Note this is orders of magnitude beyond the
> > > comprehension of the kenseto.)
> > >
> > Cardinale is another runt of the SR experts--this NG is
> > full of them. In addition he failed the Mars Lander mission.
> > Questions:
> > Why is the GPS clock remains in a non-initial path forever?
>
> Objects only follow an initial path the first time; after that they
> follow subsequent paths.
No wonder you failed the Mars Lander mission.
>
> > What makes an object to follow an inertial path?
>
> Nothing. It follows an inertial path all by itself.
So why is the GPS clock not following an inertial path?
>
> > What makes an object to follow a non-inertial path?
>
> Anything that affects its motion.
Since acceleration will affect the motion of the GPS clock
Paul Cardinale
What numbers do you get?
Paul Cardinale
Ken Seto
Answer my questions. Working out the problem is meaningless
unless you can tell me what are your assumptions that you use to
work out the problem.
Ken Seto
Paul Cardinale
Simple: Assume (for the moment) that SR is correct, then working the
problem will show you what SR predicts (which is different from what
you claim it predicts).
Paul Cardinale
Ken Seto
Answer my questions: Why is the GPS clock remain non-intial forever?
Why is the ground clock remains inertial forever?
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> Answer my questions: Why is the GPS clock remain non-intial forever?
> Why is the ground clock remains inertial forever?
Assuming by GPS clock you mean the clock in the orbiting GPS sattelite,
you have things backwards. An orbiting sattelite is in free fall
(inertial motion) about earth and remains that way since no external
force is being applied.
The ground clock has an external force applied (electromagnetic force
between atoms of the clock and atoms of whatever supports the clock)
preventing it from being in free fall. This clock is non-inertial and
will remain that way as long as the external force remains.
Beyond this the title of theis thread is absurd. A bit of research will
locate a number web sites with some details of GPS operation and design.
This research will show GPS assumes relativity to be valid.
Consequently, the only way GPS could refute relativity is if GPS did not
work. Since GPS clearly works quite well, the idea GPS refutes any part
of relativity can only come from an inadequate understanding of GPS,
relativity or both.
--
-
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02092...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
>
> > Answer my questions: Why is the GPS clock remain non-intial forever?
> > Why is the ground clock remains inertial forever?
>
> Assuming by GPS clock you mean the clock in the orbiting GPS sattelite,
> you have things backwards. An orbiting sattelite is in free fall
> (inertial motion) about earth and remains that way since no external
> force is being applied.
So is the ground clock is in free fall around the sun. Why is
it non-iinertial forever?
>
> The ground clock has an external force applied (electromagnetic force
> between atoms of the clock and atoms of whatever supports the clock)
> preventing it from being in free fall. This clock is non-inertial and
> will remain that way as long as the external force remains.
There is no continuous force applied to the ground clock.
Yhe only applied force is the force that lift the GPS
clock into orbit.
Assuming that you are right (about a continuous force applied
to the ground clock) why then the GPS clock runs
slow compared to the gro8und clock for the SR portion
of the daily correction?
Also in the twin paradox why is the traveling twin's clock
is the one that is non-inertial and that is the reason why it
is running slow compared to the stay at home (earth) clock?
>
> Beyond this the title of theis thread is absurd.
It is not absurd. The daily SR correction of the GPS clock violates
the SR assertion of mutual time dilation.
>A bit of research will
> locate a number web sites with some details of GPS operation and design.
> This research will show GPS assumes relativity to be valid.
Relativity is valid as long as you ignore the SR concept of
mutual time dilation.
> Consequently, the only way GPS could refute relativity is if GPS did not
> work.
You are trying to twist thing around. The title of the thread is
"The GPS refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation"
>Since GPS clearly works quite well, the idea GPS refutes any part
> of relativity can only come from an inadequate understanding of GPS,
> relativity or both.
ROTFL. It is obvious that you are the one who don't understand
relativity and the GPS.
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-42BDA4....@nnrp06.earthlink.net>...
> > Assuming by GPS clock you mean the clock in the orbiting GPS sattelite,
> > you have things backwards. An orbiting sattelite is in free fall
> > (inertial motion) about earth and remains that way since no external
> > force is being applied.
> So is the ground clock is in free fall around the sun. Why is
> it non-iinertial forever?
No. Earth is in free fall around the sun not the ground clock. The
ground clock is not in free fall.
> > The ground clock has an external force applied (electromagnetic force
> > between atoms of the clock and atoms of whatever supports the clock)
> > preventing it from being in free fall. This clock is non-inertial and
> > will remain that way as long as the external force remains.
> There is no continuous force applied to the ground clock.
Totally wrong.
<snip> as the rest isn't worth commenting on
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02092...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-42BDA4....@nnrp06.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > Assuming by GPS clock you mean the clock in the orbiting GPS sattelite,
> > > you have things backwards. An orbiting sattelite is in free fall
> > > (inertial motion) about earth and remains that way since no external
> > > force is being applied.
>
> > So is the ground clock is in free fall around the sun. Why is
> > it non-iinertial forever?
>
> No. Earth is in free fall around the sun not the ground clock. The
> ground clock is not in free fall.
>
> > > The ground clock has an external force applied (electromagnetic force
> > > between atoms of the clock and atoms of whatever supports the clock)
> > > preventing it from being in free fall. This clock is non-inertial and
> > > will remain that way as long as the external force remains.
>
> > There is no continuous force applied to the ground clock.
>
> Totally wrong.
Idiot.
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02092...@posting.google.com...
I think you found the right word for the guy who insists that
a clock on the ground is in free fall, and a satellite is not.
So for once, we agree. Don't we?
Paul
Bill Rowe
Please be a bit more careful in your reading and attributions. Seto
suggested the clock on the ground is in free fall not I. It is Seto's
post you are responding to suggesting you agree with him.
Based on previous posts you have made I do not believe that is your
intent. Rather, I think you have been a bit careless and have implied
something counter to what I think you believe.
Paul B. Andersen
"Bill Rowe" <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bjrowe-7D8A58....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
I think you should read what I actually wrote again. :-)
We all know who the guy I am referring to is, don't we?
I didn't say, didn't mean, and didn't expect anybody else to
believe it was you.
I do however understand that the last statement:
"So for once, we agree. Don't we?"
could make it appear that I agreed with Ken.
But be sure, I don't. It was ironically meant,
I want Ken to answer if we agree that the guy who stated
the above is an idiot.
But sorry anyway.
My post was probably prone to misinterpretation.
Paul
Ken Seto
As usual you got it wrong. I was saying that the SR effect on the
GPS clock is always running slow compared to the ground clock.
This violates the SR claim of mutual time dilation. What Rowe
did was that he injected the GR effect into the discussion.
That's why I called him an idiot.
Ken
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02093...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<an7ns9$nc1$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > > Idiot.
> >
> > I think you found the right word for the guy who insists that
> > a clock on the ground is in free fall, and a satellite is not.
> > So for once, we agree. Don't we?
>
> As usual you got it wrong. I was saying that the SR effect on the
> GPS clock is always running slow compared to the ground clock.
> This violates the SR claim of mutual time dilation. What Rowe
> did was that he injected the GR effect into the discussion.
> That's why I called him an idiot.
Ken Seto wrote:
| Why is the GPS clock remain non-intial forever?
| Why is the ground clock remains inertial forever?
And Ken Seto wrote:
| So is the ground clock is in free fall around the sun. Why is
| it non-iinertial forever?
You didn't answer my question, Ken.
Don't you agree that your description quoted at the top is quite
appropriate for the guy who insists that a clock on the ground
is in free fall, and a satellite is not?
Paul
Bill Rowe
ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> As usual you got it wrong. I was saying that the SR effect on the
> GPS clock is always running slow compared to the ground clock.
> This violates the SR claim of mutual time dilation.
The plain fact of the matter is one cannot ignore gravity in this
situation. Both clocks are not inertial. So, the fact one runs slower
than the other does not violate any SR claim since SR deals with
inertial reference systems.
> What Rowe
> did was that he injected the GR effect into the discussion.
Quite right, GR cannot be ignored when it comes to the GPS system.
Failure to consider GR would cause GPS to be in significant error.
> That's why I called him an idiot.
Once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of relativity and
the GPS system.
Ken Seto
No I didn't insist anything. Free fall is a GR effect. We
were talking about the SR effect. The SR effect is created
by the initial acceleration of the GPS clock--chaning the
state of absolute motion of the GPS clock compared to the
ground clock. That's why the GPS clock runs at a different
rate. All the quotes above show that I was asking
questions--not insisting that a ground clock is in free
fall as you claimed that I did.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02093...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > As usual you got it wrong. I was saying that the SR effect on the
> > GPS clock is always running slow compared to the ground clock.
> > This violates the SR claim of mutual time dilation.
>
> The plain fact of the matter is one cannot ignore gravity in this
> situation. Both clocks are not inertial. So, the fact one runs slower
> than the other does not violate any SR claim since SR deals with
> inertial reference systems.
>
> > What Rowe
> > did was that he injected the GR effect into the discussion.
>
> Quite right, GR cannot be ignored when it comes to the GPS system.
> Failure to consider GR would cause GPS to be in significant error.
ROTFL. I did not ignored the GR effect. In my oritginal post
I say that the GR effect is 45 ns/day running fast and the
SR effect is 7 ns/day running slow for the net relativistic
effect of 38 ns/day running fast.
>
> > That's why I called him an idiot.
>
> Once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of relativity and
> the GPS system.
ROTFL. Is there no limit to your stupidity? Next time read
the entire thread before you enter into the discussion.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.0210...@posting.google.com...
OK, so Ken never insisted anything. :-)
But then you have got the answer, haven't you?
Space time around the Earth isn't flat.
So SR doesn't apply. There is no "SR effect".
The statement in the subject field is wrong.
And since you never insisted it, I suppose you agree?
Paul
Ken Seto
The SR effect is 7ns/day running slow.
The GR effect is 45 ns/day running fast.
The total effect is 38 ns/day running fast.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com...
Since SR doesn't apply, there is no "SR-effect".
GR predicts the GPS clock will run fast by 38 us/day,
partly due to the difference in gravitational potential
(fast by 45 us/day), and partly due to the different speeds
(slow by 7 us/day.)
And it's microseconds. Not nanoseconds.
One thousand times more than you said.
But you snipped part of my posting:
The statement in the subject field is wrong.
And since you never insisted it, I suppose you agree?
Well, Ken. Do you agree?
Paul
Bill Rowe
ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> > Quite right, GR cannot be ignored when it comes to the GPS system.
> > Failure to consider GR would cause GPS to be in significant error.
> ROTFL. I did not ignored the GR effect. In my oritginal post
> I say that the GR effect is 45 ns/day running fast and the
> SR effect is 7 ns/day running slow for the net relativistic
> effect of 38 ns/day running fast.
Sigh... The distinction you are trying to make by attributing part of
the time difference to SR and part of the difference to GR is very
artifical and not really valid. The only way to make this distinction is
to pretend spacetime in the vicinity of the space clock is flat when it
isn't and compute a time dialation based on the velocity of that clock
relative to earth.
The plain fact of the matter is you are simply mis-applying SR. You are
making a computation applicable to a different physical situation than
the one you are analyzing. Then when you get a result that doesn't match
you blame SR rather than realizing the compuation simply isn't
applicable.
Nothing about the GPS system refutes either SR or GR
Stephen Speicher
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
[Usual Seto nonsense snipped.]
>
> Nothing about the GPS system refutes either SR or GR
>
Or, on a more positive note, the GPS is a tribute to the correct
predictions of general relativity.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Seto
ROTFL. Are you saying that all those experiments that
performed on earth (a curved spacetime environment)
confirming the SR predictions do not apply...eh Paul?
Question: Why do we bother with SR at all?
> GR predicts the GPS clock will run fast by 38 us/day,
> partly due to the difference in gravitational potential
> (fast by 45 us/day), and partly due to the different speeds
> (slow by 7 us/day.)
Partly due to the "different speeds"? Doesn't this mean that the
GPS clock is moving relative to the ground clock and thus SR apply?
Is this not an SR effect?
> And it's microseconds. Not nanoseconds.
> One thousand times more than you said.
OK my mistake.
>
> But you snipped part of my posting:
> The statement in the subject field is wrong.
> And since you never insisted it, I suppose you agree?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Well, Ken. Do you agree?
Agree to what?
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > > Quite right, GR cannot be ignored when it comes to the GPS system.
> > > Failure to consider GR would cause GPS to be in significant error.
>
> > ROTFL. I did not ignored the GR effect. In my oritginal post
> > I say that the GR effect is 45 ns/day running fast and the
> > SR effect is 7 ns/day running slow for the net relativistic
> > effect of 38 ns/day running fast.
>
> Sigh... The distinction you are trying to make by attributing part of
> the time difference to SR and part of the difference to GR is very
> artifical and not really valid.
Sigh...It is perfectly valid. We do this all the time.
For example;
We flew atomic clocks around to confirm SR time dilation;
We say that upper atmosphere muon live longer is due
to SR time dilation;
All those zillions of experiments that confirm SR were
performed in a curved spacetime environment.
>The only way to make this distinction is
> to pretend spacetime in the vicinity of the space clock is flat when it
> isn't and compute a time dialation based on the velocity of that clock
> relative to earth.
So I guess that we made this distinction all the tiem---very time that
we perform an experiment to confirm the prediction of SR.
>
> The plain fact of the matter is you are simply mis-applying SR.
NO. It is your refusal to admit that the SR mutual time dilation is bogus.
>You are
> making a computation applicable to a different physical situation than
> the one you are analyzing. Then when you get a result that doesn't match
> you blame SR rather than realizing the compuation simply isn't
> applicable.
Are you saying that the 7 us/day running slow is not due to the
fact that the GPS clock is in relative motion with the ground clock?
>
> Nothing about the GPS system refutes either SR or GR
Wrong. The GPS refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bill Rowe wrote:
>
> > In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> >
> [Usual Seto nonsense snipped.]
> >
> > Nothing about the GPS system refutes either SR or GR
> >
>
> Or, on a more positive note, the GPS is a tribute to the correct
> predictions of general relativity.
On a more postive note, the GPS refute the bogus SR claim of
mutual time dilation.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<ancvr4$cg3$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<ancatg$6ve$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > > > "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > > > > were talking about the SR effect. The SR effect is created
> > > > > by the initial acceleration of the GPS clock--chaning the
> > > > > state of absolute motion of the GPS clock compared to the
> > > > > ground clock. That's why the GPS clock runs at a different
> > > > > rate. All the quotes above show that I was asking
> > > > > questions--not insisting that a ground clock is in free
> > > > > fall as you claimed that I did.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so Ken never insisted anything. :-)
> > > >
> > > > But then you have got the answer, haven't you?
> > > > Space time around the Earth isn't flat.
> > > > So SR doesn't apply. There is no "SR effect".
> > >
> > > The SR effect is 7ns/day running slow.
> > > The GR effect is 45 ns/day running fast.
> > > The total effect is 38 ns/day running fast.
> >
> > Since SR doesn't apply, there is no "SR-effect".
>
> ROTFL. Are you saying that all those experiments that
> performed on earth (a curved spacetime environment)
> confirming the SR predictions do not apply...eh Paul?
> Question: Why do we bother with SR at all?
I am saying that a region of space time with a spatial
extension billions of cubic kilometres and a temporal
extension of days, and with a massive Earth in the middle
is vastly to big to be considered flat.
So SR cannot be used, you will have to use GR.
But for experiments in a lab where the region of space time
is few cubic metres and few nanoseconds, space time can
be considered flat and SR can be used.
The water surface isn't flat in a global perspective.
It is roughly spherical.
Yet you can safely consider the water surface in your
bathtub to be flat.
But you won't understand what I am talking about, of course.
So keep rolling, Ken.
When you don't understand it, laugh at it.
> > GR predicts the GPS clock will run fast by 38 us/day,
> > partly due to the difference in gravitational potential
> > (fast by 45 us/day), and partly due to the different speeds
> > (slow by 7 us/day.)
>
> Partly due to the "different speeds"? Doesn't this mean that the
> GPS clock is moving relative to the ground clock and thus SR apply?
> Is this not an SR effect?
No, it means that the relative speed of the clocks will
affect GR's prediction for the clock rates.
> > And it's microseconds. Not nanoseconds.
> > One thousand times more than you said.
>
> OK my mistake.
> > But you snipped part of my posting:
> > The statement in the subject field is wrong.
> > And since you never insisted it, I suppose you agree?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why is that?
Can't you read?
> > Well, Ken. Do you agree?
>
> Agree to what?
That the statement in the subject field, namely:
"The GPS Refutes the SR Claim of Mutual Time Dilation",
is wrong.
Do you?
Paul
Ken Seto
What about the SR claim of time dilation by the upper
atmosphere muons?
>
> But for experiments in a lab where the region of space time
> is few cubic metres and few nanoseconds, space time can
> be considered flat and SR can be used.
Again what about the decaying muons from the upper atmosphere?
What about when the flew the atomic clocks around to confirm
SR time dilation? What about the twin paradox where the
traveling twin moves billions of miles away?
BTW what is the GR math that they used to predict that
the GPS clock is running slow at 7 us/day due to different
speeds? Didn't they use SR math for that?
>
> The water surface isn't flat in a global perspective.
> It is roughly spherical.
> Yet you can safely consider the water surface in your
> bathtub to be flat.
>
> But you won't understand what I am talking about, of course.
>
> So keep rolling, Ken.
Indeed. ROTFL.
> > > Well, Ken. Do you agree?
> >
> > Agree to what?
>
> That the statement in the subject field, namely:
> "The GPS Refutes the SR Claim of Mutual Time Dilation",
> is wrong.
ROTFL. I just proved that the GPS refutes the claim of mutual time
dilation. So what is your point?
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-7ECE9B....@nnrp02.earthlink.net>...
> > Sigh... The distinction you are trying to make by attributing part of
> > the time difference to SR and part of the difference to GR is very
> > artifical and not really valid.
> Sigh...It is perfectly valid. We do this all the time. All those
> zillions of experiments that confirm SR were performed in a curved
> spacetime environment.
The fact that one can do this computation and one can do experiments to
confirm SR in curved spacetime doesn't make it meaningful to separate
out a portion of the time difference for the GPS system as part SR and
part GR. Yes, you can do this compution. But it doesn't refute SR and it
isn't very meaningful.
> > You are making a computation applicable to a different physical
> > situation than the one you are analyzing. Then when you get a
> > result that doesn't match you blame SR rather than realizing the
> > compuation simply isn't applicable.
> Are you saying that the 7 us/day running slow is not due to the
> fact that the GPS clock is in relative motion with the ground clock?
I made no specific claim other than it isn't meaningful to do
computations that don't pertain to reality. If both clocks were
inertial, then both clocks would appear slow from the reference frame of
the other clock. It isn't valid to do a computation assuming both
clocks are inertial and argue the difference between computation and
obsservation (where one of the clocks isn't inertial) shows SR to be
invalid. If you make assumptions inconsistent with the physical
situation you should expect a difference between the computed result and
observation. That is a direct consequence of your assumptions and
computation and has nothing to do with the validity of any theory.
> > Nothing about the GPS system refutes either SR or GR
> Wrong. The GPS refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation.
One of these days you might actually decide to learn something about
relativity rather than make such meaningless posts.
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<anfkrs$77f$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<ancvr4$cg3$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > > >
> > >
> > > ROTFL. Are you saying that all those experiments that
> > > performed on earth (a curved spacetime environment)
> > > confirming the SR predictions do not apply...eh Paul?
> > > Question: Why do we bother with SR at all?
> >
> > I am saying that a region of space time with a spatial
> > extension billions of cubic kilometres and a temporal
> > extension of days, and with a massive Earth in the middle
> > is vastly to big to be considered flat.
> > So SR cannot be used, you will have to use GR.
>
> What about the SR claim of time dilation by the upper
> atmosphere muons?
The duration of the muons flight is so short that the region
of space time can be considered small enough to be approximately
flat. So we can use SR for a crude calculation.
> > But for experiments in a lab where the region of space time
> > is few cubic metres and few nanoseconds, space time can
> > be considered flat and SR can be used.
>
> Again what about the decaying muons from the upper atmosphere?
Se above.
> What about when the flew the atomic clocks around to confirm
> SR time dilation?
We must use GR.
Let's see how we can calculate it.
We start with the Schwarzschild Solution in the ECI-frame::
ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt^2 - 1/(1 - 2m/r)dr^2 - r^2 (d p^2 + (sin p)^2 dq^2)
where t is the temporal coordinate,
r is the radial coordinate,
p is latitude, and q is longitude.
m = G*M/c^2 where G is the gravitational constant
and M is the mass of the Earth.
If the speed (in ECI-frame) is v, we have v*dt = r*dp.
Constant height (dr=0) around equator (dq=0)
and the equation above becomes:
ds^2 = (1 - 2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt^2 (in conventional units - thus c^2)
or
ds = sqrt(1 -2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt
or a first order approximation (m/r << 1, v << c):
T' = (1 - m/r - 0.5*v^2/c^2)*T
where T' is the proper time of the clock, and T is the travelling
time in the ECI-frame.
Since we are interested in finding the difference between two
clocks at different height and speed:
we get:
(T1 - T2)/T = -(m/r1) + (m/r2) + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
Inserting m = G*M/c^2 and G*M/r1 = g, acceleration at Earth's surface,
we get:
(T1 - T2)/T = -(g/c^2)*r1*(1-r1/r2) + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
if we set: r2 = r1 + h, and approximate (r1+h)/r1 = ca. 1 since h << r1,
we can write this:
(T1 - T2)/T = -g*h/c^2 + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
This is "all GR".
However, the second term is identical to what SR would have given
if the mass of the Earth were not there, and is commonly referred
to as "the SR part", while the first term is commonly referred to
as "the GR part" or the "the GR correction".
Let's use the equation above on our idealized case with
two planes flying in opposite direction around equator, same ground speed
and height. We will use "reasonable values" for commercial planes.
(They will have to fly non stop, though.)
Let's suppose the ground speed of the aircrafts are 232.5 m/s,
and that they are flying at a height 9000m. The aircrafts
will use two sideral days on the journey.
The speeds of the clocks in the ECI-frame will be:
Earth clock A: va = 465 m/s
West bound B: vb = va - 232.5 m/s = 232.5 m/s
East bound C: vc = va + 232.5 m/s = 697.5 m/s
West bound:
TA - TB = 2*sideral_day*(-g*h/c^2 + 0.5*vb^2/c^2 - 0.5*va^2/c^2) sec
TA - TB = 2*86160*(-1 + 0.3 - 1.2)*10^-12 sec = - 327 ns
West bound clock gains 327 ns (H&K 273 ns)
East bound:
TA - TC = 2*sideral_day*(-g*h/c^2 + 0.5*vc^2/c^2 - 0.5*va^2/c^2) sec
TA - TC = 2*86160*(-1 + 2.7 - 1.2)*10^-12 sec = + 86 ns
East bound clock loses 86 ns (H&K 59 ns)
Note that the result is "in the same ballpark" as H&K's.
But you would of course have to put in the specific heights,
speeds and time for the planes in the H&K experiment to get
the exact same results.
> What about the twin paradox where the
> traveling twin moves billions of miles away?
You mean the idealized thought experiment where
the twins are travelling in flat space time?
Then space time is flat and you can use SR.
> BTW what is the GR math that they used to predict that
> the GPS clock is running slow at 7 us/day due to different
> speeds? Didn't they use SR math for that?
No. Nothing but GR. Let's see:
We start as above with with the Schwarzschild Solution in
the ECI-frame, and find as above:
ds = sqrt(1 -2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt
or the rate of a clock relative to Schwarzschild co-ordinate time:
ds/dt = sqrt(1 -2*m/r - v^2/c^2)
We wish to compare the rate of two clocks:
The GPS clock rate f2 = ds2/dt, speed v2, radius r2
The Earth clock rate f1 = ds1/dt, speed v1, radius r1
E.g. we want the ratio (f2-f1)/f1
Using the above equation and calculating a first order approximation:
(f2 - f1)/f1 =
(G*M/(c^2*r1) - G*M/(c^2*r2)) - (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
Where G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the Earth,
r1 = radius of the Earth, r2 = radius of the orbiting clock's orbit,
v1 = speed of the Earth clock in ECI frame,
v2 = speed of the orbiting clock in ECI frame
Since we have G*M/r1 = g, acceleration at Earth's surface, we have:
(G*M/(c^2*r1) - G*M/(c^2*r2)) = (g/c^2)*r1*(1-r1/r2)
Altitude of GPS satellites = 20200 km
Orbital period = half sidereal day
Radius of the Earth r1 = 6.37*10^6 m
Radius of GPS orbit r2 = 26.57*10^6 m
g = 9.81 m/s^2
Inserting these numbers, we find that the time dilation factor
due to gravitation is: 5.28*10^-10
or 5.28*10^-10*86400 s/day = 45.6 us/day
So to the speed part:
v1 = 40000km/(23h 56m) = 4*10^7/86160 = 464 m/s
v2 = 2*pi*r2/(11h 28m)= 3.87*10^3 m/s
0.5*v2^2/c^2 = 0.83*10^-10
0.5*v1^2/c^2 = 1.2*10^-12
Thus the time dilation factor due to the speed will be: -0.82*10^-10
or -0.82*10^-10*86400 s/day = -7.08 us/day
The combined time dilation factor: (5.28-0.82)*10^-10 = 4.46*10^-10
or 4.46*10^-10*86400 s/day = 38.5 us/day
> > The water surface isn't flat in a global perspective.
> > It is roughly spherical.
> > Yet you can safely consider the water surface in your
> > bathtub to be flat.
> >
> > But you won't understand what I am talking about, of course.
> >
> > So keep rolling, Ken.
>
> Indeed. ROTFL.
Quite.
If you don't understand it, laugh at it!
So you are laughing a lot.
>
> > > > Well, Ken. Do you agree?
> > >
> > > Agree to what?
> >
> > That the statement in the subject field, namely:
> > "The GPS Refutes the SR Claim of Mutual Time Dilation",
> > is wrong.
>
> ROTFL. I just proved that the GPS refutes the claim of mutual time
> dilation. So what is your point?
Sorry, I seem to have missed that.
How can a scenario with two clocks in very curved space time,
where only one of the clocks is inertial, refute the claim
of mutual time dilation between two inertial clocks in flat
space time?
I think you better explain that, Ken.
I can however give you a hint:
Let's suppose we have one clock A moving in a circle around
a second inertial clock B in flat space time.
Now you can use SR.
Does SR predict mutual time dilation between the clocks, Ken?
Paul
Ken Seto
> > atmosphere muons?
>
> The duration of the muons flight is so short that the region
> of space time can be considered small enough to be approximately
> flat. So we can use SR for a crude calculation.
So the flight of the muon from the upper atmosphere is too short
and therefore SR is valid. What is the distance before SR
becomes invalid?
>
> > > But for experiments in a lab where the region of space time
> > > is few cubic metres and few nanoseconds, space time can
> > > be considered flat and SR can be used.
> >
Aha..."The second term is identical to what SR would have given."
So you think that this is not an SR effect? Also the second term
says that the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compareed to
the ground clock. Clearly this is refuting the SR claim of mutual
time dilation.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
But the Earth IS there.
> So you think that this is not an SR effect?
Exactly.
As you can see from the calculation above, it is part
of the GR solution.
> Also the second term
> says that the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compareed to
> the ground clock. Clearly this is refuting the SR claim of mutual
> time dilation.
You are babbling, Ken.
You cannot use SR on the GPS satellites, so SR doesn't
predict anything which can be refuted.
But we can remove the Earth, and make a scenario on which
we CAN use SR:
It's the one you snipped:
Let's suppose we have one clock A moving in a circle around
a second inertial clock B in flat space time.
We can let the radius of the circle be equal to the GPS satellites,
and the orbital speed be the same:
r = 26.57*10^6 m, v = 3.87*10^3 m/s
SR predicts that as observed from clock B,
clock A will run slow by 7us/day.
So the question is:
Does SR predict mutual time delation for this scenario?
E.g., does SR also predict that as observed from clock A,
clock B will run slow by 7 us/day?
If you want to show that the predictions of SR are wrong,
you must be able to calculate what the predictions of SR are.
Can you do that, Ken?
I have solved half the problem.
Can you calculate the other half?
That is, can you tell us what SR say the rate of clock B
is as observed from clock A?
Paul
Ken Seto
Ah...so you are calling the SR effect is part of a total GR solution
and thus the SR effect is no longer a SR effect. This is the
reason why the GPS did not refute the SR claim of mutual time
dilation. Don'y you know how stupid this sound? Is that how
you SR experts explain all the paradoxes of SR? Give it up Paul.
Between any two clocks A and B in relative motion If clock A
is running slow compared to clock B then Clock B is running fast
compared to clock A. This statement is true whether the clocks are in a
gravitational field or not. There is no mutual time dilation
between clocks A and B.
>
> > Also the second term
> > says that the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compareed to
> > the ground clock. Clearly this is refuting the SR claim of mutual
> > time dilation.
>
> You are babbling, Ken.
> You cannot use SR on the GPS satellites, so SR doesn't
> predict anything which can be refuted.
You did. You use it as part of the total relativistic solution.
The SR part says that the GPS clock always runs 7 us/day slow
compared to the ground clock and thus refute to claim of mutual
time dilation.
>
> But we can remove the Earth, and make a scenario on which
> we CAN use SR:
> It's the one you snipped:
> Let's suppose we have one clock A moving in a circle around
> a second inertial clock B in flat space time.
> We can let the radius of the circle be equal to the GPS satellites,
> and the orbital speed be the same:
> r = 26.57*10^6 m, v = 3.87*10^3 m/s
>
> SR predicts that as observed from clock B,
> clock A will run slow by 7us/day.
>
> So the question is:
> Does SR predict mutual time delation for this scenario?
> E.g., does SR also predict that as observed from clock A,
> clock B will run slow by 7 us/day?
You can't use the same r and v from clock A's point of view.
A must measure these two variables using his clock and rod before
he can make the calculation using SR math. When you finish
doing that you will get an answer different than 7 us/day
running slow.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.0210...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<ani9ig$1j3$1...@dolly.uninett.no>...
> > we CAN use SR:
> > It's the one you snipped:
> > Let's suppose we have one clock A moving in a circle around
> > a second inertial clock B in flat space time.
> > We can let the radius of the circle be equal to the GPS satellites,
> > and the orbital speed be the same:
> > r = 26.57*10^6 m, v = 3.87*10^3 m/s
> >
> > SR predicts that as observed from clock B,
> > clock A will run slow by 7us/day.
> >
> > So the question is:
> > Does SR predict mutual time delation for this scenario?
> > E.g., does SR also predict that as observed from clock A,
> > clock B will run slow by 7 us/day?
>
> You can't use the same r and v from clock A's point of view.
> A must measure these two variables using his clock and rod before
> he can make the calculation using SR math. When you finish
> doing that you will get an answer different than 7 us/day
> running slow.
You are perfectly are right, Ken.
SR does indeed NOT predict that clock B from A's point of
view will run slow by 7 us/day.
If you perform the calculation correctly, you will find
that SR predicts that from A's point of view, clock B
will run FAST by 7 us/day.
So to sum up the predictions of SR for this scenario:
According to B, A will run slow by 7 us/day
According to A, B will run fast by 7 us/day
SR does not predict mutual time dilation for this scenario.
And I am pleased to see that you agree that it doesn't.
Thus is the statement in the subject field wrong:
SR doesn't claim mutual time dilation in a scenario
where one clock circles around another.
Paul
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-7ECE9B....@nnrp02.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > Sigh... The distinction you are trying to make by attributing part of
> > > the time difference to SR and part of the difference to GR is very
> > > artifical and not really valid.
>
> > Sigh...It is perfectly valid. We do this all the time. All those
> > zillions of experiments that confirm SR were performed in a curved
> > spacetime environment.
>
> The fact that one can do this computation and one can do experiments to
> confirm SR in curved spacetime doesn't make it meaningful to separate
> out a portion of the time difference for the GPS system as part SR and
> part GR. Yes, you can do this compution. But it doesn't refute SR and it
> isn't very meaningful.
Sure it does. The result of the SR effect computation is supported by
the actual daily adjustment to the GPS clock. It reveal that the for
the SR effect the GPS clock always runs slow compared to the ground
clock. This refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation.
>
> > > You are making a computation applicable to a different physical
> > > situation than the one you are analyzing. Then when you get a
> > > result that doesn't match you blame SR rather than realizing the
> > > compuation simply isn't applicable.
>
> > Are you saying that the 7 us/day running slow is not due to the
> > fact that the GPS clock is in relative motion with the ground clock?
>
> I made no specific claim other than it isn't meaningful to do
> computations that don't pertain to reality.
You can do the GR effect and SR effect separately and then add
them up you get the same answer. I think that's very meaningful.
>If both clocks were
> inertial, then both clocks would appear slow from the reference frame of
> the other clock.
This proves that you don't understand SR very well. The reason why SR
insist on the bogus concept of mutual time dilation is because SR
can't tell which clock is really running slow. So it hedges with the
mutual time dilation concept. The correct answer is arrived by
manipulating the math. for example, in the twin paradox: at the turn
around, the earth clock jump in time to make the answer to come out
right.
>It isn't valid to do a computation assuming both
> clocks are inertial and argue the difference between computation and
> obsservation (where one of the clocks isn't inertial) shows SR to be
> invalid.
SR does not deal with the gravtational effect on time at all.
>
> > > Nothing about the GPS system refutes either SR or GR
>
> > Wrong. The GPS refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation.
>
> One of these days you might actually decide to learn something about
> relativity rather than make such meaningless posts.
I suggest that you learn why SR insists on the bogus concept of mutual
time dilation.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
So the GPS clock refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation.:-)
That's the title of this thread.
Ken Seto
Jan Bielawski
> This proves that you don't understand SR very well. The reason why SR
> insist on the bogus concept of mutual time dilation is because SR
> can't tell which clock is really running slow.
It can and it does: none of the clocks is "really running slow". We've
been telling you this for years.
> for example, in the twin paradox: at the turn
> around, the earth clock jump in time to make the answer to come out
> right.
No, that's not at all what happens in relativity. This has been also
explained to you dozens of times. Repeating a lie doesn't make it
true, you know.
Jan Bielawski
David Evens
Yers, wee KNOW that you are ignorant of the scenario that ignorant
people like you like to call "mutual time dilation". The mistake you
have (intentionally) made is assuming that there is no difference
between a clock accelerating to maintain an orbit and a clock moving
allong inertially.
Ken Seto
Now this is a lie. I dare you to find that in any of my past posts
made
reference to the fact that the earth clock jumps in time as
the traveling clock turns around.
So what happens in relativity between the twin's clocks? When did the
earth clock accumulate more time than the traveling clock?
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
> This proves that you don't understand SR very well. The reason why SR
> insist on the bogus concept of mutual time dilation is because SR
> can't tell which clock is really running slow. So it hedges with the
> mutual time dilation concept.
No, it isn't a hedge at all. The situation with two clocks in relative
motion in free space is totally symmetrical. If SR did not predict the
same result from each reference frame it would be an inconsistent theory
and wrong.
No theory which predicts one clock to be uniquely slower than the other
can possibly be correct when the clocks are in free space unless there
were an assymetry in free space.
> The correct answer is arrived by manipulating the math. for example,
> in the twin paradox: at the turn around, the earth clock jump in time
> to make the answer to come out right.
The twin paradox is resolve by realizing the situation for both clocks
in this scenario is not symmetric. One clock must undergo an
acceleration to return the clocks to the same reference frame for
comparison. That breaks the symmetry. The lack of symmetry is why one
twin ages differently than the other.
Again, one of these days you might actually learn something of
relativity.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > This proves that you don't understand SR very well. The reason why SR
> > insist on the bogus concept of mutual time dilation is because SR
> > can't tell which clock is really running slow. So it hedges with the
> > mutual time dilation concept.
>
> No, it isn't a hedge at all. The situation with two clocks in relative
> motion in free space is totally symmetrical. If SR did not predict the
> same result from each reference frame it would be an inconsistent theory
> and wrong.
Yes it is a hegge. Again this proves that you don't understand
the subtlety of SR. Clock time is not symmetric in SR. That's
why a clock accumulates a different time in different frames. SR
explains the different accumulation of clock time by saying
that time is streched (time dilation). In real life, a clock
in different frame runs at a different rate and the rate is
dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock.
>
> No theory which predicts one clock to be uniquely slower than the other
> can possibly be correct when the clocks are in free space unless there
> were an assymetry in free space.
Clearly this absurd statement is made by an uninformed SR fanatic.
LET predicts a clock runs at a different rate. Also DRT in
my website predicts that a clock runs at different rate in
different frames. The assymetry in free space is due to the
different state of absolute motion of the clock.
>
> > The correct answer is arrived by manipulating the math. for example,
> > in the twin paradox: at the turn around, the earth clock jump in time
> > to make the answer to come out right.
>
> The twin paradox is resolve by realizing the situation for both clocks
> in this scenario is not symmetric. One clock must undergo an
> acceleration to return the clocks to the same reference frame for
> comparison. That breaks the symmetry. The lack of symmetry is why one
> twin ages differently than the other.
So are you saying that the acceleration at the turn around is
the cause of clock time difference between the clocks? What about
the initial acceleration on the outbound leg?
The aether theory posits that acceleration increases the state
of absolute motion of the traveling clock and thus causes it to
run at a slower rate.
>
> Again, one of these days you might actually learn something of
> relativity.
ROTFL. Is there no limit to your stupidity?
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
> > No theory which predicts one clock to be uniquely slower than the other
> > can possibly be correct when the clocks are in free space unless there
> > were an assymetry in free space.
>
> Clearly this absurd statement is made by an uninformed SR fanatic.
> LET predicts a clock runs at a different rate.
Clearly, you've no understanding whatever. LET uses the same mathematics
as SR and makes no predictions different than SR.
When all you have is two clocks in relative motion in free space, i.e.,
no outside influences whatever, it is totally arbitrary which clock is
chosen as a reference. From each clock's perspective the other clock
runs slow. This is a totally symmetric situation. Any theory that
matches the situation *must* predict exactly the same result from each
clock's perspective.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > > No theory which predicts one clock to be uniquely slower than the other
> > > can possibly be correct when the clocks are in free space unless there
> > > were an assymetry in free space.
> >
> > Clearly this absurd statement is made by an uninformed SR fanatic.
> > LET predicts a clock runs at a different rate.
>
> Clearly, you've no understanding whatever. LET uses the same mathematics
> as SR and makes no predictions different than SR.
This shows me that you don't know the different between
math and interpretation of math <shrug>. I will Educate you this time:
1. SR and LET have the same math.
2. SR rejects the notion of absolute time.
3. LET accepts the notion of absolute time.
4. SR says that time is what the clock says.
5. In SR the passage of a clock second here is
the passage of a clock second there. In Let
a clock second can contain a different amount
of absolute time.
6. In LET the rate of a clock is different in
different frame of reference.
7. In SR the rate of a clock remains the same
in all frames of reference. The different clock
time reading between frames is due to time itself
is streched (time dilation)
>
> When all you have is two clocks in relative motion in free space, i.e.,
> no outside influences whatever, it is totally arbitrary which clock is
> chosen as a reference. From each clock's perspective the other clock
> runs slow. This is a totally symmetric situation. Any theory that
> matches the situation *must* predict exactly the same result from each
> clock's perspective.
How many times do I have to tell you that clock time readings
are not symmetric? <shrug>
Ken Seto
Patrick Reany
Ken Seto wrote:
> [snip]
>
> This shows me that you don't know the different between
> math and interpretation of math <shrug>. I will Educate you this time:
> 1. SR and LET have the same math.
But are different research programs!
> 2. SR rejects the notion of absolute time.
Yes, in as much as SR adopts an operational
meaning to time, which LET doesn't, according
to the choices made in founding the respective
research programs. Einstein said that time can
not be operationally DEFINED as absolute consistent
with the Light Principle. That's almost a trivial
observation looking back.
> 3. LET accepts the notion of absolute time.
Yes, as part of its research program objectives.
> 4. SR says that time is what the clock says.
Yes, according to the SR research program's
requirement to use operational definitions.
Ultimately ALL physical theories are accountable
to what measuring devices actually measure.
Physical theories are really ONLY freely invented
explanations of the set (or of a subset) of all possible
measurements!
LET "found" an ether only because it started off its
research program to incorporate one ab initio.
Patrick
Bill Rowe
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-EB42F2....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>...
> > Clearly, you've no understanding whatever. LET uses the same mathematics
> > as SR and makes no predictions different than SR.
> This shows me that you don't know the different between
> math and interpretation of math <shrug>.
Read what I wrote rather than attempting to interpret what I wrote. I
said LET and SR make identical *predictions*. This is independent of
interpretation.
> > When all you have is two clocks in relative motion in free space, i.e.,
> > no outside influences whatever, it is totally arbitrary which clock is
> > chosen as a reference. From each clock's perspective the other clock
> > runs slow. This is a totally symmetric situation. Any theory that
> > matches the situation *must* predict exactly the same result from each
> > clock's perspective.
> How many times do I have to tell you that clock time readings
> are not symmetric? <shrug>
I truly don't know what you think "clock time readings" mean. If you
have indentical clocks in free space, i.e. no outside influences
whatever then what is seen by one clock from the perspective of the
other clock is identical regardless of which clock is chosen as a
reference. That is what I mean by symmetrical.
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com...
YOU are wrong when YOU say that SR predicts mutual time
dilation in a scenario where one clock circles around another.
Not surprising.
Ken Seto invariably gets it wrong when he
tries to say what SR predicts.
Paul
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-EB42F2....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > Clearly, you've no understanding whatever. LET uses the same mathematics
> > > as SR and makes no predictions different than SR.
>
> > This shows me that you don't know the different between
> > math and interpretation of math <shrug>.
>
> Read what I wrote rather than attempting to interpret what I wrote. I
> said LET and SR make identical *predictions*. This is independent of
> interpretation.
Are you really that stupid? Prediction is made bu mathematic.
>
> > > When all you have is two clocks in relative motion in free space, i.e.,
> > > no outside influences whatever, it is totally arbitrary which clock is
> > > chosen as a reference. From each clock's perspective the other clock
> > > runs slow. This is a totally symmetric situation. Any theory that
> > > matches the situation *must* predict exactly the same result from each
> > > clock's perspective.
>
> > How many times do I have to tell you that clock time readings
> > are not symmetric? <shrug>
>
> I truly don't know what you think "clock time readings" mean. If you
> have indentical clocks in free space, i.e. no outside influences
> whatever then what is seen by one clock from the perspective of the
> other clock is identical regardless of which clock is chosen as a
> reference. That is what I mean by symmetrical.
Two clocks in free space do not run at the same rate even
though SR interprets (asserts) that they do. My interpretation
is supported by the GPS clocks, the twin's clocks and all
the experiments that ever performed comparing any two clocks.
Also the Lorentz Transform does not support the SR claim that
clocks in different frames run at the same rate.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > This shows me that you don't know the different between
> > math and interpretation of math <shrug>. I will Educate you this time:
> > 1. SR and LET have the same math.
>
> But are different research programs!
>
> > 2. SR rejects the notion of absolute time.
>
> Yes, in as much as SR adopts an operational
> meaning to time, which LET doesn't, according
> to the choices made in founding the respective
> research programs. Einstein said that time can
> not be operationally DEFINED as absolute consistent
> with the Light Principle. That's almost a trivial
> observation looking back.
Einstein was wrong. Time can indeed be defined as
absolute as well as be consistent with the light principle.
The following new defiinition for light speed will
illustrate my point:
Light path length of rod(300,000km)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with
the rod
This new definition makes SR into an ether theory.
>
> > 3. LET accepts the notion of absolute time.
>
> Yes, as part of its research program objectives.
>
> > 4. SR says that time is what the clock says.
>
> Yes, according to the SR research program's
> requirement to use operational definitions.
But this operational definition implies that a clock second
is an interval of absolute time---in other words, the passage
of a clock second here is equal to the passage of a clock
second everywhere. Why? Because if a clock second does not
represents an interval of universal time then the speed of
light is not a universal constant (as claimed by SR)but
rather a constant math ratio as I defined above.
> Ultimately ALL physical theories are accountable
> to what measuring devices actually measure.
> Physical theories are really ONLY freely invented
> explanations of the set (or of a subset) of all possible
> measurements!
>
> LET "found" an ether only because it started off its
> research program to incorporate one ab initio.
Not true.
Ken Seto
Patrick Reany
Ken Seto wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yes, according to the SR research program's
> > requirement to use operational definitions.
>
> But this operational definition implies that a clock second
> is an interval of absolute time---in other words, the passage
> of a clock second here is equal to the passage of a clock
> second everywhere. Why? Because if a clock second does not
> represents an interval of universal time then the speed of
> light is not a universal constant (as claimed by SR)but
> rather a constant math ratio as I defined above.
All we KNOW about clocks is that if we perceive
"time" to have proceeded according to our perception
of "past to now," then a "good" clock should have changed
its observational state by a before-and-after comparison
(i.e., the hands on the clock moved). We have no logical
or empirical reason to believe that clocks have anything to
do with ABSOLUTE time or any other metaphysical
meaning of "time." All we really KNOW is that clocks
just do what they do. In a sense, all clocks can do
is to "follow us on our path through spacetime." We
have forced clocks also to be "watchers of the clock"
as we are.
What is this obsession with ABSOLUTE time?
I just don't get it. Who cares?! Physics is NOT
metaphysics.
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
> What is this obsession with ABSOLUTE time?
> I just don't get it. Who cares?! Physics is NOT
> metaphysics.
Absolute time is part of common sense, Newtonian mechanics, classical
quantum theory. A falsification of such an important theory would be
a very interesting result of modern physics.
Unfortunately, we see a situation which is close to deceit of the
public. There are a lot of claims in pop-science that there is no
absolute time, as if this is an unquestionable truth established by
the theory of relativity. In reality we have only a weakly justified
metaphysical preference for theories without absolute time, combined
with ignorance of theories with absolute time.
Of course, it is not yet deceit if some scientist claims that
according to modern science there is no absolute time, as long as he
does not know that viable theories with absolute time exist today.
But regular readers in this group know that such theories exist - I
have given the reference gr-qc/0205035 often enough. They have only
the following scientific choices:
1.) to question that the theory presented in gr-qc/0205035 is viable,
with arguments.
2.) to acknowledge that the rejection of absolute time is a purely
metaphysical preference.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
> > What is this obsession with ABSOLUTE time?
> > I just don't get it. Who cares?! Physics is NOT
> > metaphysics.
>
> Absolute time is part of common sense,
Which part? The part that includes ghosts?
> Newtonian mechanics, classical
> quantum theory. A falsification of such an important theory would be
> a very interesting result of modern physics.
>
> Unfortunately, we see a situation which is close to deceit of the
> public. There are a lot of claims in pop-science that there is no
> absolute time, as if this is an unquestionable truth established by
> the theory of relativity. In reality we have only a weakly justified
> metaphysical preference for theories without absolute time, combined
> with ignorance of theories with absolute time.
>
> Of course, it is not yet deceit if some scientist claims that
> according to modern science there is no absolute time, as long as he
> does not know that viable theories with absolute time exist today.
>
> But regular readers in this group know that such theories exist - I
> have given the reference gr-qc/0205035 often enough. They have only
> the following scientific choices:
>
> 1.) to question that the theory presented in gr-qc/0205035 is viable,
> with arguments.
>
> 2.) to acknowledge that the rejection of absolute time is a purely
> metaphysical preference.
>
>
Operationalism simply disallows that physics is about
metaphysics, not that metaphysics is unimportant. I think,
therefore I am, is about all one needs to do physics.
That and the "existence" of sense impressions. All the
rest is pure conventional/individual fantasies -- free
creations of the human mind, some of which we share
with other inventors of "reality." Your beliefs about
absolute time are within your personal natural philosophy.
Theories that work that assume the existence of
absolute time do NOT prove the existence of
absolute time! They only prove that the human
mind can deceive itself into arbitrary beliefs. There
is no logical connection between human theories
and deep reality.
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
>>> What is this obsession with ABSOLUTE time?
>>> I just don't get it. Who cares?! Physics is NOT
>>> metaphysics.
>> Absolute time is part of common sense,
> Which part? The part that includes ghosts?
Ghost are not part of common sense. They are more or less compatible
with common sense, that's all.
>> Of course, it is not yet deceit if some scientist claims that
>> according to modern science there is no absolute time, as long as he
>> does not know that viable theories with absolute time exist today.
>> But regular readers in this group know that such theories exist - I
>> have given the reference gr-qc/0205035 often enough. They have only
>> the following scientific choices:
>>
>> 1.) to question that the theory presented in gr-qc/0205035 is viable,
>> with arguments.
>>
>> 2.) to acknowledge that the rejection of absolute time is a purely
>> metaphysical preference.
> Operationalism simply disallows that physics is about
> metaphysics, not that metaphysics is unimportant.
This philosophy is inconsistent, the subdivision between metaphysics
and physics is much more subtle than the naive positivist believes.
> I think, therefore I am, is about all one needs to do physics.
Naive nonsense.
> Theories that work that assume the existence of
> absolute time do NOT prove the existence of
> absolute time!
Don't cry, nobody has claimed here that they prove such things.
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> 2.) to acknowledge that the rejection of absolute time is a purely
> >> metaphysical preference.
>
> > Operationalism simply disallows that physics is about
> > metaphysics, not that metaphysics is unimportant.
>
> This philosophy is inconsistent, the subdivision between metaphysics
> and physics is much more subtle than the naive positivist believes.
Explain.
> > I think, therefore I am, is about all one needs to do physics.
>
> Naive nonsense.
Why? And why did you snip the rest of my claim
that went with it?
> > Theories that work that assume the existence of
> > absolute time do NOT prove the existence of
> > absolute time!
>
> Don't cry, nobody has claimed here that they prove such things.
Don't cry yourself. If you aren't trying to
affirm your superstitions about absolute time
then why bother at all? What the hell is
all this crap about absolute time being
common sense? Is your only point to
affirm that common sense makes sense
in physics? Enquiring minds want to know.
Patrick
Bill Rowe
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-7CBAF6....@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
> > I truly don't know what you think "clock time readings" mean. If you
> > have indentical clocks in free space, i.e. no outside influences
> > whatever then what is seen by one clock from the perspective of the
> > other clock is identical regardless of which clock is chosen as a
> > reference. That is what I mean by symmetrical.
> Two clocks in free space do not run at the same rate even
> though SR interprets (asserts) that they do.
And your experiemental evididence for this claim is ???
> My interpretation is supported by the GPS clocks, the twin's clocks
One of the GPS clocks held fixed in a gravitation field. i.e., it is not
in free space ands is not inertial. In other words this is a different
physical situation and does not support your comments above regarding
two clocks in free space.
As for the twin scenario, one of the clocks is accelerated breaking the
symmetry I commented on. The twin scenario is also a different physical
situation. This too does not support your comments.
> and all the experiments that ever performed comparing any two clocks.
and a specific experiment is ??? All I see here is an empty unsupported
claim
> Also the Lorentz Transform does not support the SR claim that
> clocks in different frames run at the same rate.
and the math supporting this ridiculous claim is ???
Ilja Schmelzer
>>>> metaphysical preference.
>>> Operationalism simply disallows that physics is about
>>> metaphysics, not that metaphysics is unimportant.
>> This philosophy is inconsistent, the subdivision between
>> metaphysics and physics is much more subtle than the naive
>> positivist believes.
> Explain.
The only known criterion which defines a clear enough subdivision
between physics and metaphysics is Popper's criterion. It subdivides
theories into physical and metaphysical theories, but not parts of
theories.
>>> Theories that work that assume the existence of
>>> absolute time do NOT prove the existence of
>>> absolute time!
>> Don't cry, nobody has claimed here that they prove such things.
> Don't cry yourself.
I don't. (Use of ! is named crying in the Usenet.)
> If you aren't trying to affirm your superstitions about absolute
> time then why bother at all? What the hell is all this crap about
> absolute time being common sense? Is your only point to affirm that
> common sense makes sense in physics?
The point about common sense is that, if physics reject a common sense
notion, there is an obligation to explain the laymen why. And this
explanation should be correct.
Claims like "modern physics have shown that there is no absolute time"
are not justified.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-7CBAF6....@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > I truly don't know what you think "clock time readings" mean. If you
> > > have indentical clocks in free space, i.e. no outside influences
> > > whatever then what is seen by one clock from the perspective of the
> > > other clock is identical regardless of which clock is chosen as a
> > > reference. That is what I mean by symmetrical.
>
> > Two clocks in free space do not run at the same rate even
> > though SR interprets (asserts) that they do.
>
> And your experiemental evididence for this claim is ???
When any two clocks are rejoined they show different elapsed time.
This is experimental evidence that their rates are different.
SR's claim is that one of the clock is non-inertial forever.
And yet if there is another clock the non-inertial clock could
become inertial and the other clock is non-inertial. Don't you
see that this convoluted explanation is designed to avoid the
implication of a preferred frame?
>
> > My interpretation is supported by the GPS clocks, the twin's clocks
>
> One of the GPS clocks held fixed in a gravitation field. i.e., it is not
> in free space ands is not inertial. In other words this is a different
> physical situation and does not support your comments above regarding
> two clocks in free space.
Again this can simply be explained as the clocks are running at
different rates due to the different states of absolute motion
of the clocks.
>
> As for the twin scenario, one of the clocks is accelerated breaking the
> symmetry I commented on. The twin scenario is also a different physical
> situation. This too does not support your comments.
Again this can simply be explained as the clocks are running at
different rates due to the different states of absolute motion
of the clocks.
>
> > and all the experiments that ever performed comparing any two clocks.
>
> and a specific experiment is ??? All I see here is an empty unsupported
> claim
All experiments show that distant clocks run at different rates.
>
> > Also the Lorentz Transform does not support the SR claim that
> > clocks in different frames run at the same rate.
>
> and the math supporting this ridiculous claim is ???
The fact that the passage of a clock second here does not
correspond to the passage of a clock second everywhere and
that you need the LT to figure out what is the worth of an
observer's clock second everywhere supports my claim.
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-8E3DB7....@nnrp05.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> > > Two clocks in free space do not run at the same rate even
> > > though SR interprets (asserts) that they do.
> > And your experiemental evididence for this claim is ???
>
> When any two clocks are rejoined they show different elapsed time.
> This is experimental evidence that their rates are different.
Yes. But this has nothing whatever to do with my comments about two
clocks in inertial motion in free space.
> SR's claim is that one of the clock is non-inertial forever.
This not a claim made by SR or any theory. It is portion of the
description of the physical situation.
> > > My interpretation is supported by the GPS clocks, the twin's clocks
> > One of the GPS clocks held fixed in a gravitation field. i.e., it is not
> > in free space ands is not inertial. In other words this is a different
> > physical situation and does not support your comments above regarding
> > two clocks in free space.
>
> Again this can simply be explained as the clocks are running at
> different rates due to the different states of absolute motion
> of the clocks.
Clearly you are free to explain things anyway you wish regardless of how
useful or appropriate such explainations are. Addtionally, choosing to
explain the physical situation differently does not alter the fact the
physical situation for the GPS clocks is different than two clocks in
free space with no outside influence. The point being no matter what
explaination you choose for the GPS clocks it has no relevance to my
comments.
> > and a specific experiment is ??? All I see here is an empty unsupported
> > claim
>
> All experiments show that distant clocks run at different rates.
And yet you seem unable to provide specifics of just one.
> > > Also the Lorentz Transform does not support the SR claim that
> > > clocks in different frames run at the same rate.
> >
> > and the math supporting this ridiculous claim is ???
>
> The fact that the passage of a clock second here does not
> correspond to the passage of a clock second everywhere and
> that you need the LT to figure out what is the worth of an
> observer's clock second everywhere supports my claim.
I see no math. All I see are unsupported claims.
Ken Seto
It is not an obession. IN FACT THE ONLY TIME EXIST IS ABSOLUTE TIME.
Without absolute time there is no way to explain the constancy
of the speed of light. With absolute time the speed of light
is a constant math ratio as follows:
light path length of rod (300,000km)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
>
> Patrick
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-8E3DB7....@nnrp05.earthlink.net>...
> > > In article <75dd81d3.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> > > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > > > Two clocks in free space do not run at the same rate even
> > > > though SR interprets (asserts) that they do.
>
> > > And your experiemental evididence for this claim is ???
> >
> > When any two clocks are rejoined they show different elapsed time.
> > This is experimental evidence that their rates are different.
>
> Yes. But this has nothing whatever to do with my comments about two
> clocks in inertial motion in free space.
You are dreaming you could never get two clocks in inertial motion.
Furthermore even if you have two clocks in inertial motion there
is no way to compare the rate of the two clocks. That's one of
the limitations of SR. The correct ether theory could tell which
of the two clocks is running slower
>
> > SR's claim is that one of the clock is non-inertial forever.
>
> This not a claim made by SR or any theory. It is portion of the
> description of the physical situation.
Yeah, except that you use everytime whenever you run into
trouble with mutual time dilation concept.
>
> > > > My interpretation is supported by the GPS clocks, the twin's clocks
>
> > > One of the GPS clocks held fixed in a gravitation field. i.e., it is not
> > > in free space ands is not inertial. In other words this is a different
> > > physical situation and does not support your comments above regarding
> > > two clocks in free space.
> >
> > Again this can simply be explained as the clocks are running at
> > different rates due to the different states of absolute motion
> > of the clocks.
>
> Clearly you are free to explain things anyway you wish regardless of how
> useful or appropriate such explainations are.
It is better than the mutual time dilation explanation. Do you
realize that you can never prove mutual time dilation? At least
what I said agrees with the different elapsed times of the
two clocks when they are rejoined.
>Addtionally, choosing to
> explain the physical situation differently does not alter the fact the
> physical situation for the GPS clocks is different than two clocks in
> free space with no outside influence.
Sure it is. They are in different states of absolute motion. Two
clocks in free space are also in different state of absolute
motion and thus they also run at different rates.
>The point being no matter what
> explaination you choose for the GPS clocks it has no relevance to my
> comments.
Wrong.
>
> > > and a specific experiment is ??? All I see here is an empty unsupported
> > > claim
> >
> > All experiments show that distant clocks run at different rates.
>
> And yet you seem unable to provide specifics of just one.
I gave you the specific. The different elapsed time of the two clocks
support what I said about clock rate being different. Now its
your turn to provide specific for mutual time dilation.
>
> > > > Also the Lorentz Transform does not support the SR claim that
> > > > clocks in different frames run at the same rate.
> > >
> > > and the math supporting this ridiculous claim is ???
> >
> > The fact that the passage of a clock second here does not
> > correspond to the passage of a clock second everywhere and
> > that you need the LT to figure out what is the worth of an
> > observer's clock second everywhere supports my claim.
>
> I see no math. All I see are unsupported claims.
Is there no limit to your stupidity? The LT is the math. What is
your support for mutual time dilation???
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-364672....@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
> > Yes. But this has nothing whatever to do with my comments about two
> > clocks in inertial motion in free space.
> Furthermore even if you have two clocks in inertial motion there
> is no way to compare the rate of the two clocks.
Right.
> That's one of the limitations of SR.
No, it isn't a limitation of SR. It is a limitation of what can be
measured. There is no way to directly compare clocks that aren't both
at rest wrt each other and physically close to one another.
> The correct ether theory could tell which of the two clocks is
> running slower
Unless you know of a physical experiement that you can do to confirm
this, you are engaging in metaphysics rather than physics. Without an
experiement you've no way whateverr to verify this.
> > SR's claim is that one of the clock is non-inertial forever.
> > This not a claim made by SR or any theory. It is portion of the
> > description of the physical situation.
> Yeah, except that you use everytime whenever you run into
> trouble with mutual time dilation concept.
Why do you find that surprisng? The SR result of two clocks in inertial
motion will be different when one of the clocks is not in inertial
motion. SR would be a pretty poor theory if it predicted the same
results for both of these physically different situations.
> > And yet you seem unable to provide specifics of just one.
> I gave you the specific. The different elapsed time of the two clocks
> support what I said about clock rate being different. Now its
> your turn to provide specific for mutual time dilation.
You apparently have no understanding whatever of what it means to
describe a specific experiment.
> > I see no math. All I see are unsupported claims.
>
> Is there no limit to your stupidity? The LT is the math.
Yes, the Lorentz transform is math. That is obvious. But this hardly
this observation or citing some other relationship is equivalent to
providing math in support of your silly claims.
So, it appears you cannot provide specifics of an experiment to support
your claims nor does it seem you can provide any mathematical detail.
Bill Rowe
ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> It is not an obession. IN FACT THE ONLY TIME EXIST IS ABSOLUTE TIME.
> Without absolute time there is no way to explain the constancy
> of the speed of light.
It may well be true the only explanations that satisfy Ken Seto require
the existence of absolute time. But satisfying Ken Seto is hardly a
meaningful criteria for the validity of an explanation or theory. Nor
does the fact Ken Seto doesn't accept explanations which don't assume
the existence of absolute time imply non-existence of such explanations.
David Evens
wrote:
>In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bjrowe-364672....@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
>
>> > Yes. But this has nothing whatever to do with my comments about two
>> > clocks in inertial motion in free space.
>
>> Furthermore even if you have two clocks in inertial motion there
>> is no way to compare the rate of the two clocks.
>
>Right.
>
>> That's one of the limitations of SR.
>
>No, it isn't a limitation of SR. It is a limitation of what can be
>measured. There is no way to directly compare clocks that aren't both
>at rest wrt each other and physically close to one another.
You didn't actually want the word 'both' there. You can compare two
inertial clocks in a unique way if they are either at rest relative to
each other, or if they are close enough together that you can neglect
the distance between them. Both conditions are not required at the
same time. Now, in GR, you cannot neccessarily compare clocks with
large spacial intervals between them because frames are local in GR,
anfd so you have only a local region in which spacially speereated
clocks can be compared.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > It is not an obession. IN FACT THE ONLY TIME EXIST IS ABSOLUTE TIME.
> > Without absolute time there is no way to explain the constancy
> > of the speed of light.
>
> It may well be true the only explanations that satisfy Ken Seto require
> the existence of absolute time.
speed of light. So put up or shut up.
>But satisfying Ken Seto is hardly a
> meaningful criteria for the validity of an explanation or theory. Nor
> does the fact Ken Seto doesn't accept explanations which don't assume
> the existence of absolute time imply non-existence of such explanations.
So what is your explnaation for the constancy of the speed of light???
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-364672....@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
>
> > > Yes. But this has nothing whatever to do with my comments about two
> > > clocks in inertial motion in free space.
>
> > Furthermore even if you have two clocks in inertial motion there
> > is no way to compare the rate of the two clocks.
>
> Right.
>
> > That's one of the limitations of SR.
>
> No, it isn't a limitation of SR. It is a limitation of what can be
> measured. There is no way to directly compare clocks that aren't both
> at rest wrt each other and physically close to one another.
Right. That's why you can get away with the fantom explanation
of mutual time dilation. But there is never any experimental
result that support mutual time dilation (MTD). MTD is designed
to dispell the notion of a preferred frame. As I illustrated it can be
discarded and replacced with the experimentally supported conept
that distant clocks run at different rates without any adverse
consequence.
>
> > The correct ether theory could tell which of the two clocks is
> > running slower
>
> Unless you know of a physical experiement that you can do to confirm
> this, you are engaging in metaphysics rather than physics. Without an
> experiement you've no way whateverr to verify this.
Two clocks A and B in relative motion. Observer A can
determine the clock rate of clock B as follows:
Tab=Taa/DFa
Tab=clock reading of B's clcok as predicted by A for an interval
of clock time (Taa)in A's clock
Taa= An interval of clock time on A's clock.
DFa=Doppler factor as determined by A.
DFa=Faa/Fab
Faa=frequency of a specific light source in A's frame
as measured by A
Fab = frequency of an identical light source in B's frame
as measured by A
You will find that the above equation is capable of determining the
clock rate of B compared to A's clock.
>
> > > SR's claim is that one of the clock is non-inertial forever.
>
> > > This not a claim made by SR or any theory. It is portion of the
> > > description of the physical situation.
>
> > Yeah, except that you use everytime whenever you run into
> > trouble with mutual time dilation concept.
>
> Why do you find that surprisng? The SR result of two clocks in inertial
> motion will be different when one of the clocks is not in inertial
> motion. SR would be a pretty poor theory if it predicted the same
> results for both of these physically different situations.
Yeah but what is your experimental support for two clocks that
are in inertial motion that they are running at the same rate??
>
> > > And yet you seem unable to provide specifics of just one.
>
> > I gave you the specific. The different elapsed time of the two clocks
> > support what I said about clock rate being different. Now its
> > your turn to provide specific for mutual time dilation.
>
> You apparently have no understanding whatever of what it means to
> describe a specific experiment.
Shrug, shrug. It appears that I am wasting my time.
>
> > > I see no math. All I see are unsupported claims.
> >
> > Is there no limit to your stupidity? The LT is the math.
>
> Yes, the Lorentz transform is math. That is obvious. But this hardly
> this observation or citing some other relationship is equivalent to
> providing math in support of your silly claims.
>
> So, it appears you cannot provide specifics of an experiment to support
> your claims nor does it seem you can provide any mathematical detail.
What is your experiment that support mutual time dilation? What
is your math that support mutual time dilation?
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
This doesn't support your claim. Addtitionally the first equation cannot
be correct since it isn't dimensionally consistent.
On the left hand side you have time measured in seconds, On the right
hand side you have time in seconds divided by the product of D, a
dimensionless variable and Fa, a frequency with units of 1/seconds. So
the right hand side has units of seconds^2 not seconds.
Now, once you get the equation correct you will find it matches the
predictions of SR and the comments I have made. That is with the
scenario you set up both A and B will see the same doppler shift.
Consequently each will see the others clock as slow by exactly the same
amount. This scenario does not uniquely show one clock to be slower than
the other.
> What is your experiment that support mutual time dilation? What
> is your math that support mutual time dilation?
Take your scenario above A and B in relative motio with velocity v
Assume the A's origin coincides with B's origin. Then A sees B move at v
while B sees A move at -v
A computes B's time using the Lorentz transform as slowed by factor
Sqrt[1-v^2] in units of c = 1
Likewise B computes A's time as slowed by the same factor since
(v)^2=(-v)^2
Bill Rowe
> I can accept any other explanation for the constancy of the
> speed of light. So put up or shut up.
Don't make any assumptions regarding the speed of light. Only assume the
princple of relativity applies. From this, other basic observations of
the symmetry of space and time and a little math you can arrive at the
conclusion the equations for mapping coordinates from one reference
frame to another must be of the form
x = (x' + vt')/Sqrt(1 - v^2/V^2)
t = (vx'/V^2 + t')/Sqrt(1 - v^2/V^2)
See http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/handouts/textbook/ Click
on the link for chapter 10 and read section 10.9 for details of the
derviation.
Alternatively, refer to a posting made by Tom Roberts for a slightly
different derivation leading to the same result
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22A+Physicist%27s+Derivation+of+Speci
al+Relativity%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbune
ws.ih.lucent.com&rnum=1
Once you arrive at this set of equations the only thing to be done is to
settle on the value of V^2. No assumptions are made about the speed of
light in the derivation. Consequently, something more is needed to
establish the value of V^2.
Analysis of accelerator data is sufficent to show V^2 equals c^2, i.e.,
you can arrive at the Lorentz transform by a combination of experiment
and analysis without making any assumoptions about the speed of light.
Once you have the Lorentz transform you can derive the formula for
combining velocity i.e., (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2). Remember, in this formula
one of the velocities is the velocity of an observer wrt to you and the
other is a velocity of some object with respect to you. The result is
the velocity of the object as seen by the other observer.
Now assume, the object moves at c and the observer also moves at c wrt
you. Then the formula becomes (c + c)/(1 + cc/c^2) = c. In other words
once you have the Lorentz transform you are forced to conclude anything
that moves at the maximum speed c will be seen as moving at the maximum
speed by another observer.
All that remains is to experimentally measure the local speed of light
in vacuum and confirm it moves at c as well.
So as far as an explanation of the constancy of the speed of light, the
following applies.
The geometry of local spacetime is observed to be Lorentzian, i.e., the
Lorentz transform applies.
A property of Lorentzian geometry is that anything that moves at the
maximum possible velocity will be seen to do so by all other local
observers
Light is observed to propagate at the maximum possible speed in this
geometry.
Consequently, light is seen to have the same local speed by all observers
Bill Rowe
dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 04:02:04 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >No, it isn't a limitation of SR. It is a limitation of what can be
> >measured. There is no way to directly compare clocks that aren't both
> >at rest wrt each other and physically close to one another.
> You didn't actually want the word 'both' there. You can compare two
> inertial clocks in a unique way if they are either at rest relative to
> each other, or if they are close enough together that you can neglect
> the distance between them. Both conditions are not required at the
> same time.
Yes, I did want the word "both" there. Comparing the rate at which the
clocks tick requires measurment of a time interval by each. If the
clocks are not at rest wrt each other one will have moved during this
interval making the determination of rate for each ambiguous. If they
are too far apart the finite speed of light causes ambiguity.
Yes, one can compare clocks where only one of the two conditions are met
with appropriate adjustments computed using the Lorentz transform. But
this isn't really a direct comparison of the two clocks.
Ken Seto
You are an idiot. The equation is dimensionally consistent.
>
> On the left hand side you have time measured in seconds, On the right
> hand side you have time in seconds divided by the product of D, a
> dimensionless variable and Fa, a frequency with units of 1/seconds. So
> the right hand side has units of seconds^2 not seconds.
Hey stupid!!! DFa=Faa/Fab is dimensionless. So both sides of the
equation have a dimension of second
>
> Now, once you get the equation correct you will find it matches the
> predictions of SR and the comments I have made.
Hey stupid it doesn't. SR predicts that they see each other's
clock runs slow and this equation shows that one clock is
running slow and the other is running fast.
>That is with the
> scenario you set up both A and B will see the same doppler shift.
> Consequently each will see the others clock as slow by exactly the same
> amount. This scenario does not uniquely show one clock to be slower than
> the other.
You are stupid.
>
> > What is your experiment that support mutual time dilation? What
> > is your math that support mutual time dilation?
>
> Take your scenario above A and B in relative motio with velocity v
> Assume the A's origin coincides with B's origin. Then A sees B move at v
> while B sees A move at -v
You are assuming that A and B will both measure their
relative velocity to be v and you further assumes that
one is +v and one is -v. What you are doing is that you
already assume reciprocity (mutual time dilation). In
other words, you assume mutual time dilation then use that
assumption to confirm mutual time dilation. How stupid is that??
>
> A computes B's time using the Lorentz transform as slowed by factor
> Sqrt[1-v^2] in units of c = 1
>
> Likewise B computes A's time as slowed by the same factor since
> (v)^2=(-v)^2
Idiot/
Ken Seto
Mike Varney
<SNIP>
> You are an idiot.
> Hey stupid!!!
> Hey stupid
> You are stupid.
> How stupid is that??
> Idiot/
All this ranting about stupidity from Seto, the queen of stupidity.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > I can accept any other explanation for the constancy of the
> > speed of light. So put up or shut up.
>
>
> Don't make any assumptions regarding the speed of light. Only assume the
> princple of relativity applies.
Already this assumption implies that the measured speed of light
is the same in all frames of reference. So your detour of math
to arrive at the same conclusion does not explain why the speed
of light is constant in all frames.
Ken Seto
Oriel36
> following applies.
>
> The geometry of local spacetime is observed to be Lorentzian, i.e., the
> Lorentz transform applies.
>
> A property of Lorentzian geometry is that anything that moves at the
> maximum possible velocity will be seen to do so by all other local
> observers
>
> Light is observed to propagate at the maximum possible speed in this
> geometry.
>
> Consequently, light is seen to have the same local speed by all observers
You are forgetting one important thing -
'Roemer had the wit to realise what was going on, and used the then
sketchy numbers for the distance to the sun to work out the speed of
light. While his result was not precisely correct, it was important in
one respect in particular: Roemer's observations demonstrated that the
speed of light was finite, not infinite. This was a philosophically
profound discovery. It means, for instance, that we cannot examine the
present state of everything in the universe, even in principle.'
If you add Roemer's discovery to Newton's correct assumption -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses....But because the parts of space cannot be seen, or
distinguished from one another by our senses, therefore in their stead
we use sensible measures of them. For from the positions and distances
of things from any body considered as conceptual, we define all
places; and then with respect to such places, we estimate all motions,
considering bodies as transferred from some of those places into
others. And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use
relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs;
but in philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our
senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only
sensible measures of them."
Relativity only accepts relative motions with no means to make
geometric translations as Roemer did prefering instead a half assed
aether theory.
Where have all the geometers gone ?.
Patrick Reany
Oriel36 wrote:
You call the above quote as "Newton's correct assumption,"
yet it is only his philosophical opinion that there exists a
meaning to "absolute" motions. Newton never proved
such a thing for absolute position or velocity, indeed, he
didn't even need those concepts for his mechanics. He did
assume absolute acceleration though, but he didn't prove
that it is "real." Indeed, it is not easy to decide how to
even define absolute motion as "real" in any situation
in which a theory of relative motion is all one needs
to deal with all the relevant phenomena. Please leave
"reality" to metaphysicists who know its pitfalls and traps.
It seems to me that you are trying to treat relative
motion as an "mere invention of the human mind---
an artifice for theory building," yet maintain that
"absolute motions" are NOT mere inventions of the
human mind. It appears to me that you believe that
physics can reverse engineer deep reality using
only pure reason and empirical knowledge. And that
humans must follow a unique pathway to ultimate
truth by this method. Is this right?
> Relativity only accepts relative motions with no means to make
> geometric translations as Roemer did prefering instead a half assed
> aether theory.
>
> Where have all the geometers gone ?.
Relativity is the research program to BUILD a
physics without using any (historically) "absolute"
notions. Relativity is neither true nor false. It is
just an arbitrary means of building theories that
work, and it has done very well in this regard.
The relativity of today only accepts relative motions
because it only NEEDS relative motions to be
successful in it research programs goals.
But both relativistic theories of Newton and SR
used the artifice of absolute acceleration to
give meaning to force and acceleration. I think
of that as a free creation of the human minds.
We can only observe motion with respect to
human invented reference frames, NOT with
respect to "absolute" spaces, even if they do exist.
Patrick
Bill Rowe
geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bjrowe-
> >
> > So as far as an explanation of the constancy of the speed of light, the
> > following applies.
> >
> > The geometry of local spacetime is observed to be Lorentzian, i.e., the
> > Lorentz transform applies.
> >
> > A property of Lorentzian geometry is that anything that moves at the
> > maximum possible velocity will be seen to do so by all other local
> > observers
> >
> > Light is observed to propagate at the maximum possible speed in this
> > geometry.
> >
> > Consequently, light is seen to have the same local speed by all observers
>
> You are forgetting one important thing -
>
> 'Roemer
<snip>
> If you add Roemer's discovery to Newton's correct assumption -
<snip>
Since you feel free to snip the most important parts of my post and
apparently did not check the derivations I mentioned, it seems only fair
to snip the bulk of your post and point there has been just a bit of
progress in physics since the days of Newton and Roemer. Said
differently, what you posted has no relevance to the validity of the
derivations I mentioned.
Bill Rowe
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-AFCB2E....@nnrp06.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> >
> > > I can accept any other explanation for the constancy of the
> > > speed of light. So put up or shut up.
> >
> >
> > Don't make any assumptions regarding the speed of light. Only assume the
> > princple of relativity applies.
>
> Already this assumption implies that the measured speed of light
> is the same in all frames of reference. So your detour of math
> to arrive at the same conclusion does not explain why the speed
> of light is constant in all frames.
Why is I am not surprised to see this response from you? I very much
doubt you even bothered to check the derivations. In fact, the
derivation on the Harvard web site assumes relativity, But the
derviation Tom Roberts posted startt with general assumptions about the
symetry of space and time and arrives at the same conclusion. The point
is there are many sets of assumptions that lead to the same conclusions.
Why not review the derviations for yourself and actually learn something
of relativity and physics?
Bill Rowe
My failure to read DFa as one variable instead of D times Fa neither
makes me stupid nor an idiot. If anything it points to a lack of clarity
on your part.
> You are assuming that A and B will both measure their
> relative velocity to be v and you further assumes that
> one is +v and one is -v.
That is correct. Can you provide any way to measure velocity that does
not come up with this result? If not you are engaging in metaphysics not
physics.
Oriel36
Patrick.
I thought it would be fairly obvious that radial accelerating
expansion becomes tranverse acceleration which tells you that the
Universe is rotating but unfortunately you numbskulls consider
rotation a subset of acceleration and relativity gets the whole thing
backwards.Of course you will pop up with "Universal rotation wrt what
?" but that is the corner you have painted yourselves into.
I am on the move at the moment and leave you with your 'free creations
of the mind' which are actually quite funny,at least compared to the
more stable pre-relativistic views.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bjrowe-AFCB2E....@nnrp06.earthlink.net>...
> > > In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> > > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can accept any other explanation for the constancy of the
> > > > speed of light. So put up or shut up.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't make any assumptions regarding the speed of light. Only assume the
> > > princple of relativity applies.
> >
> > Already this assumption implies that the measured speed of light
> > is the same in all frames of reference. So your detour of math
> > to arrive at the same conclusion does not explain why the speed
> > of light is constant in all frames.
>
> Why is I am not surprised to see this response from you? I very much
> doubt you even bothered to check the derivations. In fact, the
> derivation on the Harvard web site assumes relativity, But the
> derviation Tom Roberts posted startt with general assumptions about the
> symetry of space and time and arrives at the same conclusion. The point
> is there are many sets of assumptions that lead to the same conclusions.
> Why not review the derviations for yourself and actually learn something
> of relativity and physics?
When Roberts assumed the symmetry of space and time he assumed
the validity of PoR and thus assuming the measured speed of light
to be the same in all frames.
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
I see no point in debating this with you
To get back to the original point, I provided you an explanation as to
why the speed of light is constant, i.e., it is a geometric property of
spacetime. This explanation does not require the assumption of absolute
time. So, your comment that there are no explations
Bill Rowe
Do you have any evidence showing the principle of relativity doesn't
hold? If not, what is the issue?
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > When Roberts assumed the symmetry of space and time he assumed
> > the validity of PoR and thus assuming the measured speed of light
> > to be the same in all frames.
>
> Do you have any evidence showing the principle of relativity doesn't
> hold? If not, what is the issue?
That's not the issue at all. You presented an explanation why
the speed of light is a universal constant and it turns out
that your explanation is based on a postulate that assumes the
speed of light is a universal constant.
My explanation for the constancy of the speed of light is fundamental
as follows:
Light path length of rod(300,000km)/the absolute time content
Bill Rowe
<ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-20FAA0....@nnrp02.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> > ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
> >
> > > When Roberts assumed the symmetry of space and time he assumed
> > > the validity of PoR and thus assuming the measured speed of light
> > > to be the same in all frames.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence showing the principle of relativity doesn't
> > hold? If not, what is the issue?
>
> That's not the issue at all. You presented an explanation why
> the speed of light is a universal constant and it turns out
> that your explanation is based on a postulate that assumes the
> speed of light is a universal constant.
No, that isn't correct. The principle of relativity is not based an
assumption the speed of light is constant. Yes, the prinicple of
relativity leads to the *conclusion* the speed of light is constant
when coupled with observations of the about the symmetry of space and
time.
This is indeed an explanation of why the speed of light is constant and
is not circular reasoning as you are suggesting.
I have provided you an explanation that is not circular and does not
require the assumption of absolute time. So, your comment implying such
explanations don't exist isn't correct. Your rejection of this
explanation is evidence of your personal bias and is not evidence of
its non-existence
Ken Seto
No you didn't provide any explanation. You provided an assumption.
Ken Seto
Bill Rowe
> No you didn't provide any explanation. You provided an assumption.
It seems pretty clear you have no desire to learn any thing beyond your
pre-concieved ideas. So, I won't waste any more of my time responding to
you in this thread.
Ken Seto
> In article <75dd81d3.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
>
> > No you didn't provide any explanation. You provided an assumption.
>
> It seems pretty clear you have no desire to learn any thing beyond your
> pre-concieved ideas. So, I won't waste any more of my time responding to
> you in this thread.
ROTFL. You expect me to accept your circular proof that the
speed of light was not assumed??
Ken Seto