Experiment to test mutual time dilation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Aug 2010 15:40 On 8/4/10 2:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot....the rate of the TV clock will not change whether it is > approaching you or receding away from you. Satellite TV works because > Doppler effect does not change the reception rate of the picture. > > Ken Seto Betcha didn't know that TV satellites are in stationary orbits with respect to ground receivers. Got egg on your face, Seto?
From: harald on 4 Aug 2010 19:12 On Aug 4, 9:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/4/10 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Aug 4, 3:02 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/4/10 1:03 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> Doppler effect got nothing to do with my proposed experiment. The TV > >>> clock is compared to the observer's clock to get a ratio for a specfic > >>> interval on the observer's clcok, such as 84000 seconds, to give a > >>> ratio of (TV clock time interval)/observer's clock time interval) > > >>> The rest of your ranting is due to your misunderstanding of the > >>> experiment. > > >>> Ken Seto > > >> Seto the data will be Doppler shifted. Do some self education! > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect > > > Hey idiot....the rate of the TV clock will not change whether it is > > approaching you or receding away from you. Satellite TV works because > > Doppler effect does not change the reception rate of the picture. > > > Ken Seto > > Betcha didn't know that TV satellites are in stationary orbits with > respect to ground receivers. Got egg on your face, Seto? Yeah, Betcha that he didn't even *click* on the link to the paper on DvB-H that explains all that stuff ... it's more difficult to educate in 10 years* time someone who is unable and unwilling to learn than to teach the same in one or two weeks to an average student. So I'll abandon him again. Harald * I'm afraid that 10 years is not even an exaggeration!
From: Koobee Wublee on 4 Aug 2010 19:16 On Aug 3, 9:27 am, harald wrote: > BTW this is an old topic but with a slightly different presentation: > http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/18921/Testing-mutual-time-dilation The second post by Professor Roberts has a wrong conclusion on relativistic Doppler effect. The Lorentz transform actually leads to a reverse Doppler effect. Where have the self-styled physicist been in the past 100 years? See the following recent posts by yours truly at: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c06938d96ee7f84d?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fddbda5c1bb76e80?hl=en <shrug>
From: Michael Moroney on 4 Aug 2010 23:18 harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> writes: >Yeah, Betcha that he didn't even *click* on the link to the paper on >DvB-H that explains all that stuff ... it's more difficult to educate >in 10 years* time someone who is unable and unwilling to learn than to >teach the same in one or two weeks to an average student. So I'll >abandon him again. >* I'm afraid that 10 years is not even an exaggeration! Many have mentioned 15 years on Usenet, and I saw one post that stated 16 years. I was wondering if that person tracked down the date of Ken's first post and the anniversary recently passed.
From: kenseto on 5 Aug 2010 08:42
On Aug 3, 8:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/10 5:25 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > Hey idiot we can do the experiment with the GPS clock and the > > International Station clock. All we need to do is to put a TV camera > > on each clock and comare its rate with the real clock in each frame. > > If the ratio is equal than nutual time dilation is confirmed. > > > Ken Seto > > And what's the scan rate of the TV camera... and how grossly > under sampled is the data? Give us a break Seto... we can already > receive the clock cycles. Wormy you are incoherent....we are interested in the ratio between the TV clock and the observer's clock. > > But GPS Satellite clocks require the application of general > relativity, not special relativity to predict the observable > result accurately. We are talking about the ISS clock and that GPS clock. Ken Seto > > Why can't you "get it"? |