Experiment to test mutual time dilation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 3 Aug 2010 21:33 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Aug 3, 3:12 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Hey idiot I told you several time that >> >> I didn't ask what you told me. I asked for proof, and so far you haven't >> been able to supply any. Where's your proof? (I won't hold my breath) >Since you claim SR mutual time dilation is valid between the GPS clock >and the ground clock why don't you give us the proof?? Follow the link that Sam W. has asked you to read about two dozen times so far. So, where's your proof? >> > 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. >> >> The GPS clock isn't in synch with the ground clock. >Hey idiot that's why they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more >periods of Cs 133 radiation. Once again, you state your claim as if it was a proven fact. Not only that, this claim of yours is one you have been corrected on several times. >> Don't state it as if it's proven fact then, and don't try to shy away >> from the fact your theory conflicts with SR. >No idiot my theory includes SR as a subset. My theory predicts that an >observed clcok can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run fast by a >factor of gamma. The second sentence contradicts the first. Learn what it means for a theory to be a subset of another. The superset theory *cannot* contradict the subset theory.
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 21:43 On Aug 3, 6:33 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Aug 3, 3:12 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >Hey idiot I told you several time that > > >> I didn't ask what you told me. I asked for proof, and so far you haven't > >> been able to supply any. Where's your proof? (I won't hold my breath) > >Since you claim SR mutual time dilation is valid between the GPS clock > >and the ground clock why don't you give us the proof?? > > Follow the link that Sam W. has asked you to read about two dozen times > so far. > > So, where's your proof? > > >> > 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. > > >> The GPS clock isn't in synch with the ground clock. > >Hey idiot that's why they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more > >periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > Once again, you state your claim as if it was a proven fact. Not only > that, this claim of yours is one you have been corrected on several times.. > > >> Don't state it as if it's proven fact then, and don't try to shy away > >> from the fact your theory conflicts with SR. > >No idiot my theory includes SR as a subset. My theory predicts that an > >observed clcok can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run fast by a > >factor of gamma. > > The second sentence contradicts the first. > Learn what it means for a theory to be a subset of another. The superset > theory *cannot* contradict the subset theory. There are always two times that slow down to take into account for matter. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 4 Aug 2010 09:22 On Aug 3, 9:06 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/10 5:08 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > Sigh....Doppler corrections and distance of separation got nothing to > > do with it. You determine the ratios between the TV clocks with the > > observer's clock and compare them numerically. > > Seto, you need some school'n in the Doppler Effect! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect Hey idiot Doppler effect got nothing to do with the proposed experiment.
From: kenseto on 4 Aug 2010 10:10 On Aug 3, 9:33 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Aug 3, 3:12 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >Hey idiot I told you several time that > > >> I didn't ask what you told me. I asked for proof, and so far you haven't > >> been able to supply any. Where's your proof? (I won't hold my breath) > >Since you claim SR mutual time dilation is valid between the GPS clock > >and the ground clock why don't you give us the proof?? > > Follow the link that Sam W. has asked you to read about two dozen times > so far. That link does not prove that the SR concept of mutual time dilation is applicable to the GPS clock as you claimed. > > So, where's your proof? You made the claim so you show us the proof. > > >> > 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. > > >> The GPS clock isn't in synch with the ground clock. > >Hey idiot that's why they redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more > >periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > Once again, you state your claim as if it was a proven fact. Not only > that, this claim of yours is one you have been corrected on several times.. Hey idiot they reset the GPS second to contain 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > >> Don't state it as if it's proven fact then, and don't try to shy away > >> from the fact your theory conflicts with SR. > >No idiot my theory includes SR as a subset. My theory predicts that an > >observed clcok can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run fast by a > >factor of gamma. > > The second sentence contradicts the first. > Learn what it means for a theory to be a subset of another. The superset > theory *cannot* contradict the subset theory. IRT math is a super set of SR math. IRT does not have to include the bogus SR interpretations to be its super set.
From: Tony M on 4 Aug 2010 11:33
On Aug 4, 9:57 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > So every observer > does not know if the observed clock is running slow or fast compared > to his clock. This means that he must include both possibilities when > predicting the rate of an observed clock as follows: > Observed clcok runs slow: > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) > Observed clock runs fast: > Delta(t')=Delta(t)/gamma Ken, why not Delta(t)/gamma <= Delta(t') <= gamma*Delta(t)? Think about it! |