Experiment to test mutual time dilation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 23:16 On 8/2/10 10:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 2, 4:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/2/10 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> A and B are in relative motion. >>> 1. A sends a TV picture of his clock to B. >>> 2. B sends a TV picture of his clock to A. >>> 3. A measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it >>> to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of B and call this >>> ratio as Tvb/Ta. >>> 4. B measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it >>> to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of A and call this >>> ratio as Tva/Tb. >> >>> Conclusions: >>> 1. If Tvb/Ta=Tva/Tb >>> Mutual time dilation is confirmed. >> >>> 2. If Tvb/Ta is not equal to Tva/Tb. >>> Mutual time dilation is refuted. >> >>> I am betting on #2. >>> BTW, my bet is supported by the GPS clock compared to the ground >>> clock. The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7us/day running slow >>> compared >>> to the ground clock. >>> From the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is NOT >>> 7us/day running slow compared to the GPS clock. In fact it is ~7us/day >>> running fast. >> >>> Ken Seto >> >> Seto FAILS to understand that comparing GPS satellite clocks and GPS >> ground clocks requires general relativity to correctly predict the >> differences from either perspective. > > Hey idiot....I was talking about the SR effect only. From the ground > clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running > slow. Fron the GPS point of view the SR effect on the grouncd clock is > ~7us/day running fast. Who's the idiot. SR is the wrong tool for satellite clocks. One needs general relativity to correctly predict the differences from either perspective. See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html > > Ken Seto >
From: BURT on 2 Aug 2010 23:20 On Aug 2, 8:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 10:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/2/10 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> A and B are in relative motion. > >>> 1. A sends a TV picture of his clock to B. > >>> 2. B sends a TV picture of his clock to A. > >>> 3. A measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it > >>> to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of B and call this > >>> ratio as Tvb/Ta. > >>> 4. B measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it > >>> to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of A and call this > >>> ratio as Tva/Tb. > > >>> Conclusions: > >>> 1. If Tvb/Ta=Tva/Tb > >>> Mutual time dilation is confirmed. > > >>> 2. If Tvb/Ta is not equal to Tva/Tb. > >>> Mutual time dilation is refuted. > > >>> I am betting on #2. > >>> BTW, my bet is supported by the GPS clock compared to the ground > >>> clock. The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7us/day running slow > >>> compared > >>> to the ground clock. > >>> From the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is NOT > >>> 7us/day running slow compared to the GPS clock. In fact it is ~7us/day > >>> running fast. > > >>> Ken Seto > > >> Seto FAILS to understand that comparing GPS satellite clocks and GPS > >> ground clocks requires general relativity to correctly predict the > >> differences from either perspective. > > > Hey idiot....I was talking about the SR effect only. From the ground > > clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running > > slow. Fron the GPS point of view the SR effect on the grouncd clock is > > ~7us/day running fast. > > Who's the idiot. SR is the wrong tool for satellite clocks. One needs > general relativity to correctly predict the differences from either > perspective. > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5..... > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. Both theories must be taken into acount. Gravity and motion slow time. There are two times that need to be recognised. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 2 Aug 2010 23:21 On Aug 2, 4:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 12:46 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > A and B are in relative motion. > > 1. A sends a TV picture of his clock to B. > > 2. B sends a TV picture of his clock to A. > > 3. A measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it > > to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of B and call this > > ratio as Tvb/Ta. > > 4. B measures the rate of passage of time of his clock and compare it > > to the rate of passage of time on the TV clock of A and call this > > ratio as Tva/Tb. > >   Take, for example two astronaut with clocks in intergalactic >   space, where we can ignore gravitational effects. We will also ignore >   the effects of Doppler shift here. > >   A and B are observers with identical clocks. That is A and B's >   clocks ticked synchronously when they were together. > >   ât represent a time interval between tick of the clocks. > >   Special relativity predicts that observer A will measure that >    ât_B' = γ ât_B > >   where ât represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity >   between A and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) . > >   Furthermore, special relativity predicts that observer B will >   measure that >    ât_A' = γ ât_A > >   Neither measure the other's clock running fast. But each measures >   the other's clock running slow. > >   Here's the part Seto's brain can't seem to handle. Seto can be >   observer A or Seto can be observer B. Seto cannot be both >   simultaneously. There is no contradiction. Special Relativity >   correctly predicts the observation. No idiot....A or B cannot assumes that his clock is running faster than the observed clock....to do so would mean that the observer is assumoing that he is in a preferred frame. We know that A or B is not in a preferred frame. Therefore each must include that possibility that the observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. That mean that each observer must make two predictions for the observed clock as follows: For the observed clock to run fast: Delta(t')=Delta(t)/gamma For the observed clock to run slow: Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) Ken Seto > >   Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? >    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: kenseto on 2 Aug 2010 23:23 On Aug 2, 2:44 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >Conclusions: > >1. If Tvb/Ta=Tva/Tb > >Mutual time dilation is confirmed. > >2. If Tvb/Ta is not equal to Tva/Tb. > >Mutual time dilation is refuted. > >I am betting on #2. > >BTW, my bet is supported by the GPS clock compared to the ground > >clock. The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7us/day running slow > >compared > >to the ground clock. > >From the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is NOT > >7us/day running slow compared to the GPS clock. In fact it is ~7us/day > >running fast. > > You state this as if it were a proven fact. However, despite asking > several times, you have never been able to supply any proof. Hey idiot I told you several time that if the GPS sees the ground clock runs slow by 53us/day then the 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation adjustment for the GPS second would not make the GPS clock in synch with the ground clock permanently. > > If anything, it's circular logic. In some posts, you claim that if A sees > B's clock as running slow, then B will see A's clock as running fast. That my theory. > Then, based on this claim, you predict what will happen for the GPS > (ignoring for the moment the GPS is actually a GR problem, not SR). Hey idiot we were talking about the SR effect. >Then > in other posts, like this one, you take your GPS prediction as if it was a > proven fact to "prove" your claim about the two moving clock. Hey idiot I said in this post I take the position that Tvb/Ta is not equal to Tva/Tb. We need to do the experiemnt to see if I am right or wrong. Ken Seto > > Sorry, but circular logic like this has no place in science.
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 23:33
On 8/2/10 10:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot I told you several time that if the GPS sees the ground > clock runs slow by 53us/day then the 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 > radiation adjustment for the GPS second would not make the GPS clock > in synch with the ground clock permanently. Who's the idiot? Read: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html |