| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2006 09:03:42 AM |
| Object: |
The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as
a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. IRT is described in the paper entitled
"Unification of Physics" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
02 Nov 2006 03:28:59 PM |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
Both observers measure the clock's rate to be the same. I told you why.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as
a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. IRT is described in the paper entitled
"Unification of Physics" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Fucking aetherists are worse than SRians.
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
02 Nov 2006 05:12:33 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
Why is it the rate of a clock is observed to change when it is moved?
Why is it the rate of a clock is observed to be different if it is
merely higher or lower than another clock?
Why does Henri Wilson feel the need to forge evidence for having a
degree in physics?
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
03 Nov 2006 07:43:26 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
Your statement is bull *****. There is no such thing as free fall.
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
Both observers measure the clock's rate to be the same. I told you why.
You ignorant sack of *****.....if both clock's rate are measured to be
the same then how come they have to adjust the GPS clock by 38 us/day
running too fast??
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as
a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. IRT is described in the paper entitled
"Unification of Physics" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Fucking aetherists are worse than SRians.
Fucking idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
03 Nov 2006 02:32:36 PM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2006 05:43:26 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
Your statement is bull *****. There is no such thing as free fall.
Free fall is the natural state of anything, you stupid fucking aetherist....
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
Both observers measure the clock's rate to be the same. I told you why.
You ignorant sack of *****.....if both clock's rate are measured to be
the same then how come they have to adjust the GPS clock by 38 us/day
running too fast??
Because the fucking clock physically changes when launched of course.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as
a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. IRT is described in the paper entitled
"Unification of Physics" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Fucking aetherists are worse than SRians.
Fucking idiot.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
03 Nov 2006 04:09:14 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 05:43:26 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
Your statement is bull *****. There is no such thing as free fall.
Free fall is the natural state of anything, you stupid fucking aetherist....
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
Both observers measure the clock's rate to be the same. I told you why.
You ignorant sack of *****.....if both clock's rate are measured to be
the same then how come they have to adjust the GPS clock by 38 us/day
running too fast??
Because the fucking clock physically changes when launched of course.
Hey idiot if the launched clock is physically changed why did you
asserted that the GPS clock and the ground clock are running at the
same rate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
04 Nov 2006 02:06:48 AM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2006 14:09:14 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 05:43:26 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
Your statement is bull *****. There is no such thing as free fall.
Free fall is the natural state of anything, you stupid fucking aetherist....
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
Both observers measure the clock's rate to be the same. I told you why.
You ignorant sack of *****.....if both clock's rate are measured to be
the same then how come they have to adjust the GPS clock by 38 us/day
running too fast??
Because the fucking clock physically changes when launched of course.
Hey idiot if the launched clock is physically changed why did you
asserted that the GPS clock and the ground clock are running at the
same rate?
I fucking didn't.
I said the GPS clock runs at N ticks per OO orbit on the ground then N+n ticks
per orbit when it joins the OO in the same orbit.
'n' can have any value depending on the clock.
GR and your stupid aether theories have nothing to do with this.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
04 Nov 2006 07:51:52 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 14:09:14 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 05:43:26 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The ground clock second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133
atom.
The GPS second is defined as the duration (absolute time) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.
What does this mean?
The answer: It means that 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation in
the ground frame has the duration (absolute time content) of
9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
*****.
it simply means the clock rate increased slightly when the clock was sent into
a free fall situation.
Your statement is bull *****. There is no such thing as free fall.
Free fall is the natural state of anything, you stupid fucking aetherist....
This new interpretation is the reason why the ground observer and the
GPS observer will each measures the speed of light to be a constant
math ratio using his own clock second as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 meters long physically)/the
duration (absolute time) content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
Both observers measure the clock's rate to be the same. I told you why.
You ignorant sack of *****.....if both clock's rate are measured to be
the same then how come they have to adjust the GPS clock by 38 us/day
running too fast??
Because the fucking clock physically changes when launched of course.
Hey idiot if the launched clock is physically changed why did you
asserted that the GPS clock and the ground clock are running at the
same rate?
I fucking didn't.
Fucking idiot....you said: "Because the fucking clock physically
changes when launched of course."
I said the GPS clock runs at N ticks per OO orbit on the ground then N+n ticks
per orbit when it joins the OO in the same orbit.
Fucking idiot.....they define that the OC to have N+n ticks per orbit
before launch. The OO and the GO will agree that the GC will always
have N tick per orbit. In case you are too stupid to understand
(Ooops....you are already stupid) if a clock is comparing to itself it
will always be running at the same rate.
'n' can have any value depending on the clock.
GR and your stupid aether theories have nothing to do with this.
Fucking idiot
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
04 Nov 2006 03:36:40 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 14:09:14 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 05:43:26 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Because the fucking clock physically changes when launched of course.
Hey idiot if the launched clock is physically changed why did you
asserted that the GPS clock and the ground clock are running at the
same rate?
I fucking didn't.
Fucking idiot....you said: "Because the fucking clock physically
changes when launched of course."
Because it obviously does. Both observers agree on that.
I said the GPS clock runs at N ticks per OO orbit on the ground then N+n ticks
per orbit when it joins the OO in the same orbit.
Fucking idiot.....they define that the OC to have N+n ticks per orbit
before launch.
What the fucking hell are you talking about now?
They don't define anything.
They COUNT the number of ticks emitted by the clock on the ground PER ORBIT of
the OO.
You can count using your fingers, Ken.
The OO and the GO will agree that the GC will always
have N tick per orbit.
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
In case you are too stupid to understand
(Ooops....you are already stupid) if a clock is comparing to itself it
will always be running at the same rate.
Fucking idiot....
The gps clock is being compared with the ticks of a common clock, the OO's
orbit. It TICKS once every 12 hours.
'n' can have any value depending on the clock.
GR and your stupid aether theories have nothing to do with this.
Fucking idiot
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
05 Nov 2006 08:55:13 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 14:09:14 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 05:43:26 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Because the fucking clock physically changes when launched of
course.
Hey idiot if the launched clock is physically changed why did you
asserted that the GPS clock and the ground clock are running at the
same rate?
I fucking didn't.
Fucking idiot....you said: "Because the fucking clock physically
changes when launched of course."
Because it obviously does. Both observers agree on that.
I said the GPS clock runs at N ticks per OO orbit on the ground then
N+n ticks
per orbit when it joins the OO in the same orbit.
Fucking idiot.....they define that the OC to have N+n ticks per orbit
before launch.
What the fucking hell are you talking about now?
They don't define anything.
They COUNT the number of ticks emitted by the clock on the ground PER
ORBIT of
the OO.
You can count using your fingers, Ken.
The OO and the GO will agree that the GC will always
have N tick per orbit.
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
In case you are too stupid to understand
(Ooops....you are already stupid) if a clock is comparing to itself it
will always be running at the same rate.
Fucking idiot....
The gps clock is being compared with the ticks of a common clock, the OO's
orbit. It TICKS once every 12 hours.
Fucking idiot there is no common clock....the GC has a smaller orbital
diameter than the OC so you can't use the orbit as a common clock.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
05 Nov 2006 03:58:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
If the clock retains is characterisitics, then after launch, the OO should also
measure the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
This cannot and does not happen.
GR is *****.....
QED.
In case you are too stupid to understand
(Ooops....you are already stupid) if a clock is comparing to itself it
will always be running at the same rate.
Fucking idiot....
The gps clock is being compared with the ticks of a common clock, the OO's
orbit. It TICKS once every 12 hours.
Fucking idiot there is no common clock....the GC has a smaller orbital
diameter than the OC so you can't use the orbit as a common clock.
You don't even know what a 'clock' is.
Can't you read? I am using the OO's orbit only, you fucking moron. The OO is up
there before the clock joins him...and it was stated as a condition of the
experiment that both the OO and GO know exactly when the OO completes each
orbit.
The OO's orbit is the common clock. It TICKS once every 12 hours.
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 08:51:37 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:cimsk25120ae5odh8of6jcigtad3pqv7al@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count
N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this
is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC
to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the
GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
In addition to the fact that you don't know what proper rate means you don't
know thta different observer have different proper rates. That's the reason
why an observer will sees a clcok moving wrt him is running slow.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 02:56:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:51:37 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:cimsk25120ae5odh8of6jcigtad3pqv7al@4ax.com...
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count
N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this
is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC
to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the
GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
In addition to the fact that you don't know what proper rate means you don't
know thta different observer have different proper rates. That's the reason
why an observer will sees a clcok moving wrt him is running slow.
who said he does?
Where's the proof?
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 08:07:40 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
So that means that you don't know the meaning of the proper rate of a
clock. The proper rate is the rate of a clock at rest with the
observer.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Yes that's what the GO measures but that's not what the OO measures
(predicts) when he uses his clock to determine the ticks of the GC per
orbit.
If the clock retains is characterisitics, then after launch, the OO should also
measure the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Clock rate changes after launch.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 02:56:01 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2006 06:07:40 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
So that means that you don't know the meaning of the proper rate of a
clock. The proper rate is the rate of a clock at rest with the
observer.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Yes that's what the GO measures but that's not what the OO measures
(predicts) when he uses his clock to determine the ticks of the GC per
orbit.
If the clock retains is characterisitics, then after launch, the OO should also
measure the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Clock rate changes after launch.
That's what I have been trying to tell you....
'TIME' DOESN'T DO ANYTHING UNUSUAL. THE FUCKING CLOCK CHANGES.
So are you agreeing with me or not?
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 04:54:03 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 06:07:40 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
So that means that you don't know the meaning of the proper rate of a
clock. The proper rate is the rate of a clock at rest with the
observer.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Yes that's what the GO measures but that's not what the OO measures
(predicts) when he uses his clock to determine the ticks of the GC per
orbit.
If the clock retains is characterisitics, then after launch, the OO should also
measure the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Clock rate changes after launch.
That's what I have been trying to tell you....
'TIME' DOESN'T DO ANYTHING UNUSUAL. THE FUCKING CLOCK CHANGES.
Explain the difference if every clock is affected the same way.
So are you agreeing with me or not?
Ken Seto
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 05:02:04 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 06:07:40 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:55:13 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:n11qk2lfvgd77u71ig5qor37b66qhouq15@4ax.com...
On 4 Nov 2006 05:51:52 -0800, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
I just said that. When the clock is on the ground, both observers count N
ticks
per orbit.
When it is launched, they both count N+n ticks per orbit.
So why did you say that the launched clock is running at the same rate as
the GC? If you are talking about GR you need to realize that from the GO
point of view he is predicting the OC to run N+n ticks per orbit and this is
comparing to his clock. From the OO point of view he is predicting the GC to
run M-m tick per orbit and this is comparing to his clock rate with the GC
clock rate.
M=normal ticks of the OC per orbit.
m=the OO predicts the ticks of the GC to run slow per orbit.
GR says that the clock retains its proper rate.
An observer adjacent to the clock will measure its proper rate.
So that means that you don't know the meaning of the proper rate of a
clock. The proper rate is the rate of a clock at rest with the
observer.
Before launch, the GO measures the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Yes that's what the GO measures but that's not what the OO measures
(predicts) when he uses his clock to determine the ticks of the GC per
orbit.
If the clock retains is characterisitics, then after launch, the OO should also
measure the proper rate as being N ticks per orbit.
Clock rate changes after launch.
That's what I have been trying to tell you....
No you fucking idiot.....you just said the OO should also measure the
proper rate as being N ticks per orbit. That does not mean that clock
rate change after launch.
'TIME' DOESN'T DO ANYTHING UNUSUAL. THE FUCKING CLOCK CHANGES.
Absolute time does not change. The rate of a clock changes
So are you agreeing with me or not?
No I don't agree with you. You are mixing absolute time with clock time
(clock rate).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Norman Bates" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
06 Nov 2006 11:59:37 PM |
|
|
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1162854124.554254.245930@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Absolute time does not change. The rate of a clock changes
Absolute time? What is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
07 Nov 2006 07:51:54 AM |
|
|
Norman Bates wrote:
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1162854124.554254.245930@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Absolute time does not change. The rate of a clock changes
Absolute time? What is that?
There are two kinds of time: Clock time and absolute time. The
relationship between clock time and absolute time are as follows:
A clock second is an interval of clock time. A clock second in a
specific frame of reference will represent a specfic interval of
absolute time. This means that a clock second in different frames will
represent different intervals of absolute time. For example: a clock
second on earth is the duration (AN INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME)
represent by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom. This same
INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME on earth is represented 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition of the hyperfine
levels of the Cs133 atom up at the GPS location.
This relationship between clock time and absolute time is the reason
why the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio by all
observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equation of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Norman Bates" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
08 Nov 2006 03:20:38 AM |
|
|
I find this facinating, so please bear with me. Are you saying that the
periods of the radiation of the Cs133 atom remains constant, say when moving
at near the speed of light, in relation to a Cs133 atom on earth? Or would
it still be the same period when the one Cs133 atom was on earth and the
other very close to a black hole? If not then it can't be reffered to as
asolute time. Or if it is so, then what expreriments confirmed this and and
is it widely accepted by the scientific community?
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1162907514.418949.296330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Norman Bates wrote:
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1162854124.554254.245930@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Absolute time does not change. The rate of a clock changes
Absolute time? What is that?
There are two kinds of time: Clock time and absolute time. The
relationship between clock time and absolute time are as follows:
A clock second is an interval of clock time. A clock second in a
specific frame of reference will represent a specfic interval of
absolute time. This means that a clock second in different frames will
represent different intervals of absolute time. For example: a clock
second on earth is the duration (AN INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME)
represent by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom. This same
INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME on earth is represented 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition of the hyperfine
levels of the Cs133 atom up at the GPS location.
This relationship between clock time and absolute time is the reason
why the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio by all
observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equation of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
08 Nov 2006 09:09:02 AM |
|
|
"Norman Bates" <dj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1162977531.127203@work.isdsl.net...
I find this facinating, so please bear with me. Are you saying that the
periods of the radiation of the Cs133 atom remains constant, say when
moving
at near the speed of light, in relation to a Cs133 atom on earth?
No....a transition of the Cs 133 atom on earth would represent a larger
amount of absolute time than a transition of the Cs 133 atom up at the GPS
location. That's why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on earth has
the same absolute time content as 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
Or would
it still be the same period when the one Cs133 atom was on earth and the
other very close to a black hole?
No a transition of Cs 133 atom on earth has different absolute time content
than a transition of Cs 133 atom near a body that has a different
gravitational potential as the earth
If not then it can't be reffered to as
asolute time.
That's because CLOCK time (clock second) does not represent the same amount
of absolute time in different frames.
Or if it is so, then what expreriments confirmed this and and
is it widely accepted by the scientific community?
Time dilation is the result of a clock second contains a different amount of
absolute time in different frames.
Ken Seto
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1162907514.418949.296330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Norman Bates wrote:
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1162854124.554254.245930@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Absolute time does not change. The rate of a clock changes
Absolute time? What is that?
There are two kinds of time: Clock time and absolute time. The
relationship between clock time and absolute time are as follows:
A clock second is an interval of clock time. A clock second in a
specific frame of reference will represent a specfic interval of
absolute time. This means that a clock second in different frames will
represent different intervals of absolute time. For example: a clock
second on earth is the duration (AN INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME)
represent by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom. This same
INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME on earth is represented 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition of the hyperfine
levels of the Cs133 atom up at the GPS location.
This relationship between clock time and absolute time is the reason
why the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio by all
observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equation of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Norman Bates" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
09 Nov 2006 12:32:51 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:iqm4h.25990$OE1.22877@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Norman Bates" <dj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1162977531.127203@work.isdsl.net...
I find this facinating, so please bear with me. Are you saying that the
periods of the radiation of the Cs133 atom remains constant, say when
moving
at near the speed of light, in relation to a Cs133 atom on earth?
No....a transition of the Cs 133 atom on earth would represent a larger
amount of absolute time than a transition of the Cs 133 atom up at the GPS
location. That's why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on earth has
the same absolute time content as 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
Or would
it still be the same period when the one Cs133 atom was on earth and the
other very close to a black hole?
No a transition of Cs 133 atom on earth has different absolute time
content
than a transition of Cs 133 atom near a body that has a different
gravitational potential as the earth
If not then it can't be reffered to as
asolute time.
That's because CLOCK time (clock second) does not represent the same
amount
of absolute time in different frames.
Okay, I'm stupid. What is asolute time then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
09 Nov 2006 07:13:24 AM |
|
|
Norman Bates wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:iqm4h.25990$OE1.22877@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Norman Bates" <dj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1162977531.127203@work.isdsl.net...
I find this facinating, so please bear with me. Are you saying that the
periods of the radiation of the Cs133 atom remains constant, say when
moving
at near the speed of light, in relation to a Cs133 atom on earth?
No....a transition of the Cs 133 atom on earth would represent a larger
amount of absolute time than a transition of the Cs 133 atom up at the GPS
location. That's why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on earth has
the same absolute time content as 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
Or would
it still be the same period when the one Cs133 atom was on earth and the
other very close to a black hole?
No a transition of Cs 133 atom on earth has different absolute time
content
than a transition of Cs 133 atom near a body that has a different
gravitational potential as the earth
If not then it can't be reffered to as
asolute time.
That's because CLOCK time (clock second) does not represent the same
amount
of absolute time in different frames.
Okay, I'm stupid. What is asolute time then?
There are two kinds of time: Clock time and absolute time. The
relationship between clock time and absolute time are as follows:
A clock second is an interval of clock time. A clock second in a
specific frame of reference will represent a specfic interval of
absolute time. This means that a clock second in different frames will
represent different intervals of absolute time. For example: a clock
second on earth is the duration (AN INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME)
represent by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom. This same
INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME on earth is represented 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition of the hyperfine
levels of the Cs133 atom up at the GPS location.
This relationship between clock time and absolute time is the reason
why the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio by all
observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equation of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Norman Bates" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
09 Nov 2006 11:39:02 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1163078004.052094.11220@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Norman Bates wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:iqm4h.25990$OE1.22877@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Norman Bates" <dj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1162977531.127203@work.isdsl.net...
I find this facinating, so please bear with me. Are you saying that
the
periods of the radiation of the Cs133 atom remains constant, say when
moving
at near the speed of light, in relation to a Cs133 atom on earth?
No....a transition of the Cs 133 atom on earth would represent a larger
amount of absolute time than a transition of the Cs 133 atom up at the
GPS
location. That's why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on earth
has
the same absolute time content as 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
Or would
it still be the same period when the one Cs133 atom was on earth and
the
other very close to a black hole?
No a transition of Cs 133 atom on earth has different absolute time
content
than a transition of Cs 133 atom near a body that has a different
gravitational potential as the earth
If not then it can't be reffered to as
asolute time.
That's because CLOCK time (clock second) does not represent the same
amount
of absolute time in different frames.
Okay, I'm stupid. What is asolute time then?
There are two kinds of time: Clock time and absolute time. The
relationship between clock time and absolute time are as follows:
A clock second is an interval of clock time. A clock second in a
specific frame of reference will represent a specfic interval of
absolute time. This means that a clock second in different frames will
represent different intervals of absolute time. For example: a clock
second on earth is the duration (AN INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME)
represent by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom. This same
INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME on earth is represented 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition of the hyperfine
levels of the Cs133 atom up at the GPS location.
This relationship between clock time and absolute time is the reason
why the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio by all
observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equation of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Okay, I see what you are saying. I don't know if I can agree with absoulte
time, but that's my problem. You also mentioned absolute motion and then
you would have to have absolute rest and I would think that at absolute
rest, time would be infinite?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
10 Nov 2006 08:44:52 AM |
|
|
"Norman Bates" <dj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1163137028.85232@work.isdsl.net...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1163078004.052094.11220@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Norman Bates wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:iqm4h.25990$OE1.22877@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Norman Bates" <dj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1162977531.127203@work.isdsl.net...
I find this facinating, so please bear with me. Are you saying that
the
periods of the radiation of the Cs133 atom remains constant, say
when
moving
at near the speed of light, in relation to a Cs133 atom on earth?
No....a transition of the Cs 133 atom on earth would represent a
larger
amount of absolute time than a transition of the Cs 133 atom up at
the
GPS
location. That's why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on earth
has
the same absolute time content as 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location.
Or would
it still be the same period when the one Cs133 atom was on earth and
the
other very close to a black hole?
No a transition of Cs 133 atom on earth has different absolute time
content
than a transition of Cs 133 atom near a body that has a different
gravitational potential as the earth
If not then it can't be reffered to as
asolute time.
That's because CLOCK time (clock second) does not represent the same
amount
of absolute time in different frames.
Okay, I'm stupid. What is asolute time then?
There are two kinds of time: Clock time and absolute time. The
relationship between clock time and absolute time are as follows:
A clock second is an interval of clock time. A clock second in a
specific frame of reference will represent a specfic interval of
absolute time. This means that a clock second in different frames will
represent different intervals of absolute time. For example: a clock
second on earth is the duration (AN INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME)
represent by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponds to the
transition of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom. This same
INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME on earth is represented 9,192,631,774.4647
periods of the radiation corresponds to the transition of the hyperfine
levels of the Cs133 atom up at the GPS location.
This relationship between clock time and absolute time is the reason
why the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio by all
observers as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equation of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of
Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Okay, I see what you are saying. I don't know if I can agree with
absoulte
time, but that's my problem. You also mentioned absolute motion and then
you would have to have absolute rest and I would think that at absolute
rest, time would be infinite?
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow. In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest. That
means that a real life observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him
are running slow and some are running fast. This interpretation gives rise
to a new theory of relativity call IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments....including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" (page 4) in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
10 Nov 2006 03:43:28 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished frame.
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow.
Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest.
Do you believe that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer or
clock to be in your state of absolute rest?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
10 Nov 2006 04:34:36 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished frame.
Sure but no object in the universe is in that distinguish frame.
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow.
Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
Yes. If he didn't he would have discovered IRT. IRT allows the
observer's clock to run slow or fast compared to his clock.
In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest.
Do you believe that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer or
clock to be in your state of absolute rest?
NO....all objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion....especially in the present of gravity.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
10 Nov 2006 04:39:49 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished frame.
Sure but no object in the universe is in that distinguish frame.
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow.
Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
Yes. If he didn't he would have discovered IRT. IRT allows the
observer's clock to run slow or fast compared to his clock.
Sorry....it should be: IRT allows the
observer's clock to run slow or fast compared to *the observed clock*
clock.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
11 Nov 2006 12:07:57 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished frame.
Sure but no object in the universe is in that distinguish frame.
Why not?
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow.
SR says no such thing. A clock having a velocity component coming at
you can be seen to be running fast in SR. No problem. Have you heard
of blue shift?
Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
Yes. If he didn't he would have discovered IRT.
Whew! So despite Einstein's basic assertion that there is no absolute
rest you think he would agree that an observer must be at absolute
rest to see moving clocks run slower than his. I think he was smarter
than that.
In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest.
Do you believe that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer or
clock to be in your state of absolute rest?
NO....all objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion....especially in the present of gravity.
Let's leave gravity out of it. SR has nothing at all to say about
what happens when it's presence is of any signifigance.
So what prevents an object in your state of absolute motion from
decelerating from that state to your state of absolute rest?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
11 Nov 2006 08:35:14 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:hPadnWKF-oVV9cjYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate
compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other
words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished
frame.
Sure but no object in the universe is in that distinguish frame.
Why not?
Because every object in the universe is in a state of realtive motion and
relative motion between any two objects is the vector difference of their
individual motions.
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and
that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him
are
running slow.
SR says no such thing.
Sure SR asserts such thing. The PoR allows an SR observer to consider
himself to be in any frame of reference to do physics. Einstein (SR) choosed
the absolute rest frame and that's why SR only has time dilation and length
contraction equations. If Einstein didn't choose the absolute rest frame to
do physics he would have included time expansion and length expansion
equations.
A clock having a velocity component coming at
you can be seen to be running fast in SR. No problem. Have you heard
of blue shift?
Doppler shift does not represent the actual rate of an observed clock. Think
about it....if a clock is moving toward you, you would say that its clock
rate is running fast compared to your clock and the same clock moving past
you and now it is receding from you and you would say that it is now running
slow compared to your clock. Question: What causes the observed clock to
change rate? The answer: Nothing.
Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
Yes. If he didn't he would have discovered IRT.
Whew! So despite Einstein's basic assertion that there is no absolute
rest you think he would agree that an observer must be at absolute
rest to see moving clocks run slower than his. I think he was smarter
than that.
Whew! Einstein didn't assert that there is no absolute rest frame. He
asserted that all frames (including the absolute rest frame) are equivalent
(the PoR). He choosed the simplest frame to do physics and that's the
absolute rest frame.
In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest.
Do you believe that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer or
clock to be in your state of absolute rest?
NO....all objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion....especially in the present of gravity.
Let's leave gravity out of it. SR has nothing at all to say about
what happens when it's presence is of any signifigance.
But you can't leave gravity out of it. All objects in the universe are under
the influence of gravity.
So what prevents an object in your state of absolute motion from
decelerating from that state to your state of absolute rest?
For an object by itself....there is no such thing as deceleration. When add
energy to an object and cause it to accelerate you are increasing its state
of absolute motion.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The GPS second vs the ground clock second |
13 Nov 2006 05:16:32 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:hPadnWKF-oVV9cjYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:
NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate
compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other
words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished
frame.
Sure but no object in the universe is in that distinguish frame.
Why not?
Because every object in the universe is in a state of realtive motion
You might just be on to something here.
and
relative motion between any two objects is the vector difference of their
individual motions.
That doesn't even attempt to answer the question but I expected that.
Anyway, what are these individual motions of yours relative to?
In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and
that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him
are
running slow.
SR says no such thing.
Sure SR asserts such thing. The PoR allows an SR observer to consider
himself to be in any frame of reference to do physics. Einstein (SR) choosed
the absolute rest frame
That's a bold faced lie. It's a lie you tell to to try to make him wrong.
and that's why SR only has time dilation and length
contraction equations. If Einstein didn't choose the absolute rest frame to
do physics he would have included time expansion and length expansion
equations.
Your premise is false so your conclusion cannot be born by it.
A clock having a velocity component coming at
you can be seen to be running fast in SR. No problem. Have you heard
of blue shift?
Doppler shift does not represent the actual rate of an observed clock. Think
about it....if a clock is moving toward you, you would say that its clock
rate is running fast compared to your clock and the same clock moving past
you and now it is receding from you and you would say that it is now running
slow compared to your clock.
So far as I can tell by just observing it and counting ticks.
Question: What causes the observed clock to
change rate? The answer: Nothing.
Why do you think the clock changes its rate? The observer holding it
sees no change.
Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
Yes. If he didn't he would have discovered IRT.
Whew! So despite Einstein's basic assertion that there is no absolute
rest you think he would agree that an observer must be at absolute
rest to see moving clocks run slower than his. I think he was smarter
than that.
Whew! Einstein didn't assert that there is no absolute rest frame.
He most certainly did.
He
asserted that all frames (including the absolute rest frame) are equivalent
(the PoR). He choosed the simplest frame to do physics and that's the
absolute rest frame.
That's a bald faced lie and you know it.
In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest.
Do you believe that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer or
clock to be in your state of absolute rest?
NO....all objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion....especially in the present of gravity.
Let's leave gravity out of it. SR has nothing at all to say about
what happens when it's presence is of any signifigance.
But you can't leave gravity out of it. All objects in the universe are under
the influence of gravity.
Ok, SR explains a toy universe in which there is no gravity. It still
explains it correctly. You can find places where gravity is too small
to have a signifigant effect on your measurements, a toy universe for
all practical purposes, and in those regions your measurements will be
entirely consistent with SR. You gotta keep in mind that SR is not a
belief system to argue philosophically as you try to do, it is a self
consistent formal system which models the way that reality behaves in
a restricted sense (no forces or accelerations.) Many have looked for
a way for a long time but no one has succeeded in breaking the model.
It's lookin' good.
So what prevents an object in your state of absolute motion from
decelerating from that state to your state of absolute rest?
For an object by itself....there is no such thing as deceleration. When add
energy to an object and cause it to accelerate you are increasing its state
of absolute motion.
That is the stupidest thing you have said yet and that places it atop
a huge mound of stupid. You are disqualified. Next.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
