| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2007 04:08:58 AM |
| Object: |
WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a22394b?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1
Tom Roberts: "First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief
discussion. Then, the general form of the transformation equations
will be derived, followed by a brief discussion of their
implications......This is why most (if not all) physicists today
believe in Special Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an
alternative description without violating one of the postulates or
disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence. If you truly
believe that Special Relativity simply must be false (for whatever
reason), go back and review the four Postulates, and find a hole in
them."
Roberts Roberts you are absolutely right. Many physicists have devoted
their lives to trying to find a hole in your four Postulates but
failed. Now most (if not all) physicists know:
It is impossible to find a hole in Tom Roberts' four Postulates and
therefore we all should believe UNCONDITIONALLY in special
relativity.
As for disregarding a very large body of experimental evidence,
Roberts Roberts you are absolutely right again:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Roberts Roberts let me say it again: Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo
Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer the Albert
Einstein of our generation)!
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 01:51:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1178472993.266438.35080@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On May 6, 10:18 am, wrote:
In article <133rph099ge7...@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> writes:
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463de35b$0$4857$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Fucking idiot.
Ken has now lost the last shred of credibility he may have had remaining.
Now?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
This exchange underscores how incredible difficult is to get a crank
to admit that he's wrong. The closest to this are the following :
1. they turn tail and "disappear" for a while (only to "reappear"
with the same ***** a few days later when they think that everybody
forgot about their humiliation).
2. they produce a post that contains nothing but swear words.
There may be more variants of the above
Variant 1a) would be reappearing under a different name (but still
with the same *****). And, yes, pretty much everything you'll see will
be variations on these themes.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 12:36:33 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 10:18 am, wrote:
In article <133rph099ge7...@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> writes:
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463de35b$0$4857$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Fucking idiot.
Ken has now lost the last shred of credibility he may have had remaining.
Now?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
This exchange underscores how incredible difficult is to get a crank
to admit that he's wrong. The closest to this are the following :
1. they turn tail and "disappear" for a while (only to "reappear"
with the same ***** a few days later when they think that everybody
forgot about their humiliation).
2. they produce a post that contains nothing but swear words.
There may be more variants of the above
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
04 May 2007 10:05:55 AM |
|
|
On May 4, 7:36 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178233825.479847.80990@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
correspond to the passage of a B's clock second.
Of course, you are...wrong , as always. "Conservation" is independent
of frame of reference. Unless, of course, if you are working with IRT.
What does "R" stand for? Retardation?
Why don't you show us the the SR calculations how symmetry give us these
conservation laws and I will show how the IRT calculations.
No, dr. Seto . You show the IRT calculations, I challenged you first.
Then, I will give you a lesson in basic physics. I promise. So, the
IRT calculations, please. No more attempts to give the runaround.
Until you show your calculations you have ....nothing.
Hey idiot "r"unt....
Dr. Seto, we all know that what you are is spelled with a "c", not
with an "r".
When you loose the argument you becoming abusive, so, you already
lost. Again.
Now to physics
.the IRT calculations is the same as the SR calculations.
Umm, no, you are using a variable c formula, so.....
Use the IRT formula for "variable c" to explain the mathematics of any
of these 3 experiments:
1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
2. Sagnac experiment
3. Gagnon experiment
Until you do it, you have zero credibility. You just look like a
weasel that tries desperately to give the runaround every time he's
asked to produce proof of validity of IRT.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 09:39:14 AM |
|
|
On May 4, 7:36 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
<karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178233825.479847.80990@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
correspond to the passage of a B's clock second.
Of course, you are...wrong , as always. "Conservation" is independent
of frame of reference. Unless, of course, if you are working with IRT.
What does "R" stand for? Retardation?
Why don't you show us the the SR calculations how symmetry give us these
conservation laws and I will show how the IRT calculations.
No, dr. Seto . You show the IRT calculations, I challenged you first.
Then, I will give you a lesson in basic physics. I promise. So, the
IRT calculations, please. No more attempts to give the runaround.
Until you show your calculations you have ....nothing.
Hey idiot "r"unt....
What we call you starts with "c", please stop misspelling things.
.the IRT calculations is the same as the SR calculations.
Then show them.
Arrival speed of incoming light = c'= [(detected frequency of incoming
light)][d*sin(theta)]
But this is not what SR is saying, SR is saying c=constant, so SR
cannot be a subset of IRT . Plug in your:
c'= [(detected frequency of incominglight)][d*sin(theta)]
and we will all find out. What does "R" stand for in IRT? "Retarded"?
"Runaround"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
04 May 2007 09:41:32 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot runt.....the IRT calculations is the same as the SR calculations.
SR is a subset of IRT. IRT and SRT agree that light from a local source is a
constant c.
Here's an SR calculation:
Ken, consider two entities, A and B, experiencing relative motion
such that each measures dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| >> 0 with respect
to each other.
Consider observer A. A will *measure* B's clock to run slow.
Similarly, B will *measure* A's clock to run slow. And, of course,
this is expected due to the symmetric relationship between A and B.
The degree of *measured* time dilation is exactly as is predicted
by SR.
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will measure B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure* A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Each measures the other's clock to run slower than her own. According
to Seto IRT gets the same answer for A, but not for B. Clearly the
thinking behind IRT is wrong. IRT is empirically wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 09:21:41 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:wCH_h.34488$n_.10994@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot runt.....the IRT calculations is the same as the SR
calculations.
SR is a subset of IRT. IRT and SRT agree that light from a local source
is a
constant c.
Here's an SR calculation:
Ken, consider two entities, A and B, experiencing relative motion
such that each measures dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| >> 0 with respect
to each other.
Consider observer A. A will *measure* B's clock to run slow.
Similarly, B will *measure* A's clock to run slow. And, of course,
this is expected due to the symmetric relationship between A and B.
The degree of *measured* time dilation is exactly as is predicted
by SR.
Hey idiot no such measurements were made. You are giving bogus SR assertions
of reciprocity. The SR effect on the GPS clock is not reciprocal.
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will measure B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure* A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements. They are what SR predicts. Both of these
predictions can't be correct. If A predicts B's clock is running slow by a
factor of 1/1.00056 then B will predict A's clock is running fast by a
factor of 1.00056. The SR assumption of mutal time dilation is bogus. No
experimental data support such assumption.
Each measures the other's clock to run slower than her own. According
to Seto IRT gets the same answer for A, but not for B. Clearly the
thinking behind IRT is wrong. IRT is empirically wrong.
You are fucking stupid. IRT is supported by the GPS clocks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 09:27:30 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463de32c$0$15159$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:wCH_h.34488$n_.10994@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot runt.....the IRT calculations is the same as the SR
calculations.
SR is a subset of IRT. IRT and SRT agree that light from a local source
is a
constant c.
Here's an SR calculation:
Ken, consider two entities, A and B, experiencing relative motion
such that each measures dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| >> 0 with respect
to each other.
Consider observer A. A will *measure* B's clock to run slow.
Similarly, B will *measure* A's clock to run slow. And, of course,
this is expected due to the symmetric relationship between A and B.
The degree of *measured* time dilation is exactly as is predicted
by SR.
Hey idiot no such measurements were made. You are giving bogus SR
assertions
of reciprocity. The SR effect on the GPS clock is not reciprocal.
SR is completely reciprocal and symmetrical when there is no acceleration
(ie for inertial frames of reference)
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will measure B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure* A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
They are what SR predicts. Both of these
predictions can't be correct.
Yes .. they can
If A predicts B's clock is running slow by a
factor of 1/1.00056 then B will predict A's clock is running fast by a
factor of 1.00056.
No, it won't. Its symmterical.
The SR assumption of mutal time dilation is bogus.
Why?
No experimental data support such assumption.
Time dilation is shown experimentally.
Each measures the other's clock to run slower than her own. According
to Seto IRT gets the same answer for A, but not for B. Clearly the
thinking behind IRT is wrong. IRT is empirically wrong.
You are fucking stupid. IRT is supported by the GPS clocks.
GPS clocks used SR and GR as I understand .. I doubt they'd use some
crackpot theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 01:35:35 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463de32c$0$15159$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:wCH_h.34488$n_.10994@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot runt.....the IRT calculations is the same as the SR
calculations.
SR is a subset of IRT. IRT and SRT agree that light from a local
source
is a
constant c.
Here's an SR calculation:
Ken, consider two entities, A and B, experiencing relative motion
such that each measures dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| >> 0 with respect
to each other.
Consider observer A. A will *measure* B's clock to run slow.
Similarly, B will *measure* A's clock to run slow. And, of course,
this is expected due to the symmetric relationship between A and B.
The degree of *measured* time dilation is exactly as is predicted
by SR.
Hey idiot no such measurements were made. You are giving bogus SR
assertions
of reciprocity. The SR effect on the GPS clock is not reciprocal.
SR is completely reciprocal and symmetrical when there is no acceleration
(ie for inertial frames of reference)
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure* A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not....the gamma factor is a prediction by SR. IRT has similar
prediction in the form of Fab/Faa.
They are what SR predicts. Both of these
predictions can't be correct.
Yes .. they can
No they can't all clock will have different elapsed time after a journey.
This shows that relative clocks are asymmetric.
If A predicts B's clock is running slow by a
factor of 1/1.00056 then B will predict A's clock is running fast by a
factor of 1.00056.
No, it won't. Its symmterical.
Your assertions are not valid arguements
The SR assumption of mutal time dilation is bogus.
Why?
Because all clocks show different elapsed time after a journey.
No experimental data support such assumption.
Time dilation is shown experimentally.
Time dilation shows that relative clocks are running at different rates and
thus shows asymmetry of the relatively moving clocks.
In real life there is no time dilation.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
4. Therefore there is no time dilation if the elapsed time on B's clock is
converted to the A's clock reading.
Each measures the other's clock to run slower than her own.
According
to Seto IRT gets the same answer for A, but not for B. Clearly the
thinking behind IRT is wrong. IRT is empirically wrong.
You are fucking stupid. IRT is supported by the GPS clocks.
GPS clocks used SR and GR as I understand .. I doubt they'd use some
crackpot theory.
The Sr effect on the GPS clock is calculated separately. From the ground
clock point of view The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect
on the ground clock is approximately 7 us/day running fast. No symmetry
there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
06 May 2007 07:01:45 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure* A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
....the gamma factor is a prediction by SR.
I know what the gamma factor is
IRT has similar prediction in the form of Fab/Faa.
Yeah, whatever
They are what SR predicts. Both of these
predictions can't be correct.
Yes .. they can
No they can't
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Each will see the other clock running
slower than their own .. That is symetric.
all clock will have different elapsed time after a journey.
This shows that relative clocks are asymmetric.
They will have the same time if they do symmetric things. If they don't
then they won't. This so-called 'twins paradox' is fully explained and has
been observed experiemantally.
If A predicts B's clock is running slow by a
factor of 1/1.00056 then B will predict A's clock is running fast by a
factor of 1.00056.
No, it won't. Its symmterical.
Your assertions are not valid arguements
Your the one asserting, and incorrectly
I'm stating what SR predicts .. you seem very confused about it.
I don't need to prove anything .. its all in SR. I suggest you read up on
it.
The SR assumption of mutal time dilation is bogus.
Why?
Because all clocks show different elapsed time after a journey.
They will have the same time if they do symmetric things. If they don't
then they won't. This so-called 'twins paradox' is fully explained and has
been observed experiemantally.
No experimental data support such assumption.
Time dilation is shown experimentally.
Time dilation shows that relative clocks are running at different rates
and
They are observed at running at a slower rate from a relatively moving
inertial frame of reference
thus shows asymmetry of the relatively moving clocks.
The rate that B ticks does not change, the rate that A ticks does not
change. All that changes is how A measures B's clock and B measuser A's
clock. Each will see the other clock running slower than their own .. That
is symetric.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
4. Therefore there is no time dilation if the elapsed time on B's clock is
converted to the A's clock reading.
No .. you just made a mistake.
Each measures the other's clock to run slower than her own.
According
to Seto IRT gets the same answer for A, but not for B. Clearly the
thinking behind IRT is wrong. IRT is empirically wrong.
You are fucking stupid. IRT is supported by the GPS clocks.
GPS clocks used SR and GR as I understand .. I doubt they'd use some
crackpot theory.
The Sr effect on the GPS clock is calculated separately.
Iirelevant
From the ground clock point of view The SR effect on
the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
That's because there is acceleration.
compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock point of view the SR
effect
on the ground clock is approximately 7 us/day running fast. No symmetry
there.
GR is not symmetric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
07 May 2007 08:58:31 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133sr3g700h456@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure*
A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
Hey idiot there is no measurement made. SR predicts that From A's point of
view B's clock is running 1/gamma slow and from B's point of view A's clock
is running 1/gamma slow. These predictions never been confirmed
experimentally.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid. So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
07 May 2007 06:19:12 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463f2f36$0$15146$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133sr3g700h456@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will
measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will *measure*
A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A
measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
Hey idiot
yes ***** face?
there is no measurement made.
Yes . there is .. its all about whan an observer from one FoR observes (ie
measures) of the other FoR. There's no change in clock speed unless it is
in comparison with some other FoR .. and some other FoR will always be the
same or slower.
SR predicts that From A's point of
view B's clock is running 1/gamma slow and from B's point of view A's
clock
is running 1/gamma slow.
Yes
These predictions never been confirmed
experimentally.
Time dilation is experimentally proven.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid.
No .. I understand SR though .. You seem to have trouble with it
So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
Yes .. of course .. if there is a factor of 1/gamma. its just math Maybe
you did not make yourself clear in
"But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth: (1/gamma)(gamma)
= 1 A's clock second"
Its confusing as not sure what FoR your actually talking about in any of the
above. Can you be more precise about what FoR you mean in each of those?
Regardless though, SR is symmetric in situations where the FoR do symmetric
things (not when say, one (non-inertial) FoR accelerates and decelerates)
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 08:13:40 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133vcvnt4ltvcbb@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463f2f36$0$15146$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133sr3g700h456@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will
measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will
*measure*
A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not
change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A
measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock
running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
Hey idiot
yes ***** face?
there is no measurement made.
Yes . there is .. its all about whan an observer from one FoR observes (ie
measures) of the other FoR. There's no change in clock speed unless it is
in comparison with some other FoR .. and some other FoR will always be the
same or slower.
Hey fucking idiot....that's not measurement. That's prediction.
SR predicts that From A's point of
view B's clock is running 1/gamma slow and from B's point of view A's
clock
is running 1/gamma slow.
Yes
These predictions never been confirmed
experimentally.
Time dilation is experimentally proven.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid.
No .. I understand SR though .. You seem to have trouble with it
So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
Yes .. of course .. if there is a factor of 1/gamma. its just math Maybe
you did not make yourself clear in
You are a fucking idiot. In SR...if A is the observer:
The elapse of 1/gamma B clock second on B's clock is worth 1 A clock second
elapsed on A's clock.
Ken Seto
"But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma)
= 1 A's clock second"
Its confusing as not sure what FoR your actually talking about in any of
the
above. Can you be more precise about what FoR you mean in each of those?
Regardless though, SR is symmetric in situations where the FoR do
symmetric
things (not when say, one (non-inertial) FoR accelerates and decelerates)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 09:16:24 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46407635$0$4905$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133vcvnt4ltvcbb@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463f2f36$0$15146$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133sr3g700h456@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will
measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will
*measure*
A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not
change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A
measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock
running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
Hey idiot
yes ***** face?
there is no measurement made.
Yes . there is .. its all about whan an observer from one FoR observes
(ie
measures) of the other FoR. There's no change in clock speed unless it
is
in comparison with some other FoR .. and some other FoR will always be
the
same or slower.
Hey fucking idiot....that's not measurement. That's prediction.
Hey, ***** face .. its a prediction of what would be measured.
SR predicts that From A's point of
view B's clock is running 1/gamma slow and from B's point of view A's
clock
is running 1/gamma slow.
Yes
These predictions never been confirmed
experimentally.
Time dilation is experimentally proven.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so 1/gamma
B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid.
No .. I understand SR though .. You seem to have trouble with it
So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
Yes .. of course .. if there is a factor of 1/gamma. its just math
Maybe
you did not make yourself clear in
You are a fucking idiot.
You are a fucking stupid *****
In SR...if A is the observer:
OK .. _NOW_ you've spelled out the FoR as being A .. that's why your
statemnt was so ambiguous before, as I suggested .. you had not made
yourself clear.
The elapse of 1/gamma B clock second on B's clock is worth 1 A clock
second
elapsed on A's clock.
And of course, being symmetrical, you get that if B is the observer:
The elapse of 1/gamma A clock second on A's clock is worth 1 B clock second
elapsed on B's clock.
A second on A's clock is a second to A, and a second on B's clock is a
second to B.
If A is observing B's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but B will
still see it as ticking the same
If B is observing A's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but A will
still see it as ticking the same
Its very simple.. I don't know what you're having so much trouble with it ..
other than you bing a ***** faced moron
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 01:18:20 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13411i0nsfd48d7@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46407635$0$4905$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133vcvnt4ltvcbb@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463f2f36$0$15146$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133sr3g700h456@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will
measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will
*measure*
A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not
change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A
measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock
running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
Hey idiot
yes ***** face?
there is no measurement made.
Yes . there is .. its all about whan an observer from one FoR observes
(ie
measures) of the other FoR. There's no change in clock speed unless it
is
in comparison with some other FoR .. and some other FoR will always be
the
same or slower.
Hey fucking idiot....that's not measurement. That's prediction.
Hey, ***** face .. its a prediction of what would be measured.
Hey ***** face its never been measured while the clock is in motion.
SR predicts that From A's point of
view B's clock is running 1/gamma slow and from B's point of view A's
clock
is running 1/gamma slow.
Yes
These predictions never been confirmed
experimentally.
Time dilation is experimentally proven.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so
1/gamma
B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid.
No .. I understand SR though .. You seem to have trouble with it
So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
Yes .. of course .. if there is a factor of 1/gamma. its just math
Maybe
you did not make yourself clear in
You are a fucking idiot.
You are a fucking stupid *****
In SR...if A is the observer:
OK .. _NOW_ you've spelled out the FoR as being A .. that's why your
statemnt was so ambiguous before, as I suggested .. you had not made
yourself clear.
The elapse of 1/gamma B clock second on B's clock is worth 1 A clock
second
elapsed on A's clock.
And of course, being symmetrical, you get that if B is the observer:
The elapse of 1/gamma A clock second on A's clock is worth 1 B clock
second
elapsed on B's clock.
No ....you don't get that.when the B clock rejoins A it has less elapsed
time than the A clock. So there is no symmetry.
A second on A's clock is a second to A, and a second on B's clock is a
second to B.
But the passage of an A clock second does not correspond to the passage of a
B clcok second.
If A is observing B's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but B will
still see it as ticking the same
If B is observing A's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but A will
still see it as ticking the same
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 06:26:16 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4640bd9b$0$15180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13411i0nsfd48d7@corp.supernews.com...
there is no measurement made.
Yes . there is .. its all about whan an observer from one FoR observes
(ie measures) of the other FoR. There's no change in clock speed
unless it
is in comparison with some other FoR .. and some other FoR will always
be
the same or slower.
Hey fucking idiot....that's not measurement. That's prediction.
Hey, ***** face .. its a prediction of what would be measured.
Hey ***** face its never been measured while the clock is in motion.
Yes .. ***** head, it has . for atomic clocks, for GPS, for particle
lifetime. Time dilation as predicted by SR is well supported by
experimental evidence.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so
1/gamma
B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid.
No .. I understand SR though .. You seem to have trouble with it
So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
Yes .. of course .. if there is a factor of 1/gamma. its just math
Maybe
you did not make yourself clear in
You are a fucking idiot.
You are a fucking stupid *****
In SR...if A is the observer:
OK .. _NOW_ you've spelled out the FoR as being A .. that's why your
statemnt was so ambiguous before, as I suggested .. you had not made
yourself clear.
The elapse of 1/gamma B clock second on B's clock is worth 1 A clock
second
elapsed on A's clock.
And of course, being symmetrical, you get that if B is the observer:
The elapse of 1/gamma A clock second on A's clock is worth 1 B clock
second
elapsed on B's clock.
No ....you don't get that.when the B clock rejoins A it has less elapsed
time than the A clock. So there is no symmetry.
There IS symmetry in the clocks when there is symmetry in what you do to
them. If once of them accelerates and decellerates and turns around and
comes back, then the symmetry is lost as it should be.
A second on A's clock is a second to A, and a second on B's clock is a
second to B.
But the passage of an A clock second does not correspond to the passage of
a
B clcok second.
It is exactly as I said above
If A is observing B's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but B will
still see it as ticking the same
If B is observing A's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but A will
still see it as ticking the same
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
The symmetry is not bogus if you do symmetrical things to the clock. Learn
your SR ***** head. You're just making yourself look like a bigger fool
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 01:18:49 PM |
|
|
In article <4640bd9b$0$15180$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote:
If A is observing B's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but B will
still see it as ticking the same
If B is observing A's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but A will
still see it as ticking the same
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
The above clearly shows that YOU are the fucking idiot, Ken. Less time on
Usenet and more time back in class for you.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
09 May 2007 05:56:59 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13411i0nsfd48d7@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46407635$0$4905$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133vcvnt4ltvcbb@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463f2f36$0$15146$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133sr3g700h456@corp.supernews.com...
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463e1eb9$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:133rpeop83bac70@corp.supernews.com...
Furthermore, let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s. Then A will
measure
B's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056, and B will
*measure*
A's
clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Again these are not measurements.
Yes .. they are
No they are not
Yes they are .. go learn some SR. The rate that B ticks does not
change,
the rate that A ticks does not change. All that changes is how A
measures
B's clock and B measuser A's clock. Both will see the oth clock
running
slower than their own .. That is symetric,.
Hey idiot
yes ***** face?
there is no measurement made.
Yes . there is .. its all about whan an observer from one FoR observes
(ie
measures) of the other FoR. There's no change in clock speed unless it
is
in comparison with some other FoR .. and some other FoR will always be
the
same or slower.
Hey fucking idiot....that's not measurement. That's prediction.
Hey, ***** face .. its a prediction of what would be measured.
Hey ***** face its never been measured while the clock is in motion.
SR predicts that From A's point of
view B's clock is running 1/gamma slow and from B's point of view A's
clock
is running 1/gamma slow.
Yes
These predictions never been confirmed
experimentally.
Time dilation is experimentally proven.
In real life there is no time dilation.
Yes there is .. that is what experiments show.
1. A and B are moving wrt each other.
2. A's clock second is worth 1/gamma B's clock second.
3. But in terms of A's clock 1/gamma B clock second is worth:
(1/gamma)(gamma) = 1 A's clock second
Incorrect .. B clock second is 1/gamma of A clocks second, so
1/gamma
B
clock second is 1/gamms*1/gamma A clock second
ROTFLOL.....you are so fucking stupid.
No .. I understand SR though .. You seem to have trouble with it
So you are saying that 1/gamma B
clock second is 1/gamma^2 clock second A clock second?????
Yes .. of course .. if there is a factor of 1/gamma. its just math
Maybe
you did not make yourself clear in
You are a fucking idiot.
You are a fucking stupid *****
In SR...if A is the observer:
OK .. _NOW_ you've spelled out the FoR as being A .. that's why your
statemnt was so ambiguous before, as I suggested .. you had not made
yourself clear.
The elapse of 1/gamma B clock second on B's clock is worth 1 A clock
second
elapsed on A's clock.
And of course, being symmetrical, you get that if B is the observer:
The elapse of 1/gamma A clock second on A's clock is worth 1 B clock
second
elapsed on B's clock.
No ....you don't get that.when the B clock rejoins A it has less elapsed
time than the A clock. So there is no symmetry.
A second on A's clock is a second to A, and a second on B's clock is a
second to B.
But the passage of an A clock second does not correspond to the passage of a
B clcok second.
If A is observing B's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but B will
still see it as ticking the same
If B is observing A's clock, he will see it ticking slower .. but A will
still see it as ticking the same
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS BEILIEVED BECAUSE EINSTEIN SAID
THAT EMPTY SPACE CANNOT BE MEASURED WITHOUT IT.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 01:53:58 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
....and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 04:30:42 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 06:29:55 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4640eab1$0$16706$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
When did this turn into a discussion about GPS?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 06:36:35 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 4:29 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4640eab1$0$16706$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
When did this turn into a discussion about GPS?
Ken's limited education and lack of intellectual curiosity limits him
to a few well-known examples, of which GPS is one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
08 May 2007 06:16:09 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 2:30 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
Very good, Ken. You have come to understand what people have been
telling you for years.
SR is valid for only _sufficiently local_ frames of reference. In
other words, where the curvature effect is unmeasurable. Just like how
Euclidean geometry is valid for sufficiently small regions on the
surface of a sphere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
09 May 2007 09:13:34 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178666169.864312.104070@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 2:30 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed
time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
Very good, Ken. You have come to understand what people have been
telling you for years.
It's not very good.....the SR effect on the GPS clock is calculated
separately. There is no symmetry on the SR effect is observed between the
GPS clock and the ground clock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
09 May 2007 12:17:19 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 7:13 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178666169.864312.104070@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 2:30 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different elapsed
time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
Very good, Ken. You have come to understand what people have been
telling you for years.
It's not very good.....the SR effect on the GPS clock is calculated
separately. There is no symmetry on the SR effect is observed between the
GPS clock and the ground clock.
There is NO SR effect, Ken.
It is calculated with GR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
09 May 2007 06:39:30 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178731039.162473.181600@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 7:13 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178666169.864312.104070@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 2:30 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different
elapsed
time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god
knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
Very good, Ken. You have come to understand what people have been
telling you for years.
It's not very good.....the SR effect on the GPS clock is calculated
separately. There is no symmetry on the SR effect is observed between the
GPS clock and the ground clock.
There is NO SR effect, Ken.
It is calculated with GR.
You mean there is more than just the effect SR would predict, but those SR
predictions are included as part of the more general GR predictions (because
SR is a subset of GR). Yes?
Whether or not a satellite system has offsets / calculations for those
effect built into its design, or whether it is adjusted for as part of some
closed system is really not relevant to whether the SR/GR predicted effects
are real, and results in some adjustment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
09 May 2007 07:33:26 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 4:39 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178731039.162473.181600@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 7:13 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178666169.864312.104070@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 2:30 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different
elapsed
time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him god
knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that right?:-)
Very good, Ken. You have come to understand what people have been
telling you for years.
It's not very good.....the SR effect on the GPS clock is calculated
separately. There is no symmetry on the SR effect is observed between the
GPS clock and the ground clock.
There is NO SR effect, Ken.
It is calculated with GR.
You mean there is more than just the effect SR would predict, but those SR
predictions are included as part of the more general GR predictions (because
SR is a subset of GR). Yes?
No.
SR _can not_ apply to GPS.
Whether or not a satellite system has offsets / calculations for those
effect built into its design, or whether it is adjusted for as part of some
closed system is really not relevant to whether the SR/GR predicted effects
are real, and results in some adjustment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
10 May 2007 04:59:18 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178757206.850618.104760@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178731039.162473.181600@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 7:13 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178666169.864312.104070@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 2:30 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178650437.958785.79280@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:18 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
fucking idiot.....clocks in relative motion show different
elapsed
time
when
they are rejoined. This shows that symmetry is bogus.
...and Ken realizes something that has been explained to him
god
knows
how many times over the years.
The symmetry is broken when one of the clocks accelerates.
Since the ground frame and the GPS frame are in a constant state
of
acceleration then SR symmetry is not valid on earth is that
right?:-)
Very good, Ken. You have come to understand what people have been
telling you for years.
It's not very good.....the SR effect on the GPS clock is calculated
separately. There is no symmetry on the SR effect is observed between
the
GPS clock and the ground clock.
There is NO SR effect, Ken.
It is calculated with GR.
You mean there is more than just the effect SR would predict, but those
SR
predictions are included as part of the more general GR predictions
(because
SR is a subset of GR). Yes?
No.
SR _can not_ apply to GPS.
Hey idiot the SR effect is calculated separately the cobimed effect of this
with the gravtational effect is called the GR effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
10 May 2007 07:37:19 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178757206.850618.104760@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You mean there is more than just the effect SR would predict, but those
SR
predictions are included as part of the more general GR predictions
(because
SR is a subset of GR). Yes?
No.
SR _can not_ apply to GPS.
Why .. isn't there, an SR effect due to the speed of the satellite ? The
documents on GPS all seem to mention that there is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
10 May 2007 09:09:17 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178757206.850618.104760@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You mean there is more than just the effect SR would predict, but those
SR
predictions are included as part of the more general GR predictions
(because
SR is a subset of GR). Yes?
No.
SR _can not_ apply to GPS.
Why .. isn't there, an SR effect due to the speed of the satellite ? The
documents on GPS all seem to mention that there is?
SR doesn't play a role in the determination of the satellite clock
offset. Relative velocity is observer dependent and is handled at the
GPS receiver level.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY |
10 May 2007 09:34:00 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:hIF0i.45834$n_.1101@attbi_s21...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178757206.850618.104760@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You mean there is more than just the effect SR would predict, but those
SR
predictions are included as part of the more general GR predictions
(because
SR is a subset of GR). Yes?
No.
SR _can not_ apply to GPS.
Why .. isn't there, an SR effect due to the speed of the satellite ? The
documents on GPS all seem to mention that there is?
SR doesn't play a role in the determination of the satellite clock
offset. Relative velocity is observer dependent and is handled at the
GPS receiver level.
So it is still part of the calculations. . but in the receive rather than
the satellite itself?
That seems a bit of a technicality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
