Einstein's 1905 Invalid Argument

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein "borrowed" the false constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations, redefined it as "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the postulate (reverse engineering):

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. Einstein's second sin was an invalid deduction. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous but idiotic "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world was already irreversibly brainwashed:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

Pentcho Valev

[Ed Lake]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev totally misunderstands Einstein AND time dilation. Pentcho writes:

----quote----
The conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
---- unquote -----

Einstein is correct, and he has been confirmed to be correct by many experiments. The clock that moves shows less time has passed than the clock that did not move. It's called "velocity time dilation."

Pentcho Valev's "conclusions" are INCORRECT. His "conclusions" assume that all movement is reciprocal. It's not. All movement is relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred. So, relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, Clock A moved and Clock B did not move.

Pentcho Valev also misunderstands relativity. Relativity says that within Clock-A's "frame of reference," everything seems normal. Time seems to tick at at its normal rate. And the same with Clock-B in its "frame of reference." Everything seems normal, and time seems to tick at its normal rate. BUT, if you compare the length of a second in one frame versus the other, Clock-A's frame of reference has a longer "second" because it moved. Time slows down when you are moving.

In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.

There's an interesting article at this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html

Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate. Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. However, no one in London realizes that their clocks are ticking faster than clocks in Miami. Everything in their frame of reference seems "normal." But, if you COMPARE one frame to the other, you will see that the clock in Miami is ticking slower than the clock in London (by a few trillionths of a second).

Pentcho Valev's ridiculous argument claims that from Miami's point of view, London is moving slower, and from London's point of view, Miami is moving slower. That is ABSURD. How can that be possible on a spinning globe?

Movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. Therefore time dilation is NOT RECIPROCAL.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Pentcho Valev
Einstein "borrowed" the false constancy of the speed of light from the
Lorentz equations, redefined it as "postulate", and finally derived, for
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the
stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the
speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased
if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein
states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time,
to the point of despair."
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin.
Einstein's second sin was an invalid deduction. In 1905 he derived, from
his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From
this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A
and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary
system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the
velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which
has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock
moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination
give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B.
In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward
prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST
(asymmetrical time dilation). The famous but idiotic "travel into the
future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means
that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of
the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that
this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards
the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect
practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities
comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the
capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that
a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time)
arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see,
and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of
realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in
a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s
Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as
expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar,
regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work
at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished?
The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to
work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not
only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then
be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it
is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have
been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the
theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects
of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the
clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the
question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the
equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE
CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Pentcho Valev

----quote----
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has
remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock
moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
---- unquote -----
Einstein is correct, and he has been confirmed to be correct by many
experiments. The clock that moves shows less time has passed than the
clock that did not move. It's called "velocity time dilation."
Pentcho Valev's "conclusions" are INCORRECT. His "conclusions" assume
that all movement is reciprocal. It's not. All movement is relative to
the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred. So, relative to the
point where the Big Bang occurred, Clock A moved and Clock B did not move.
Pentcho Valev also misunderstands relativity. Relativity says that
within Clock-A's "frame of reference," everything seems normal. Time
seems to tick at at its normal rate. And the same with Clock-B in its
"frame of reference." Everything seems normal, and time seems to tick at
its normal rate. BUT, if you compare the length of a second in one frame
versus the other, Clock-A's frame of reference has a longer "second"
because it moved. Time slows down when you are moving.
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at
the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at
1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing
still while turning in place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html
Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different
rate. Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph.
London is moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph.
However, no one in London realizes that their clocks are ticking faster
than clocks in Miami. Everything in their frame of reference seems
"normal." But, if you COMPARE one frame to the other, you will see that
the clock in Miami is ticking slower than the clock in London (by a few
trillionths of a second).
Pentcho Valev's ridiculous argument claims that from Miami's point of
view, London is moving slower, and from London's point of view, Miami is
moving slower. That is ABSURD. How can that be possible on a spinning globe?
Movement is NOT RECIPROCAL. Therefore time dilation is NOT RECIPROCAL.
Ed

Ed, you know for a fact that your stints here are brief and ill-fated. You
always leave in an angry huff when you get cascades of responses pointing
out how uneducated and uninformed you are, and how foolish it is to do
“amateur thinkin’ “ in your own personal vacuum and a pile of crappy
internet resources you do not comprehend.

So why do you do this cycle over and over again? Is it because you get
lonely talking to yourself and end up craving interaction, even if it’s
abusive?

[Steve BH]

“In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.”

Einstein got this one wrong, and realized why later.

At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.

Clocks on the geoid all go slower than clocks in interplanetary space. And clocks above sea level have an offset between these extremes. Clocks at elevation thus must offset before the contribute to global atomic time.

Clocks in orbit also must compensate for both motion and g potential, which cancel (with respect to geoid) at a distance of 1.5 Earth radii but not below or above that orbit. GOS clock are at 4.2 radio so the higher potential wins in their offset compared to sea level.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Steve BH
“In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.”
Einstein got this one wrong, and realized why later.
At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.
Clocks on the geoid all go slower than clocks in interplanetary space. And clocks above sea level have an offset between these extremes. Clocks at elevation thus must offset before the contribute to global atomic time.
Clocks in orbit also must compensate for both motion and g potential, which cancel (with respect to geoid) at a distance of 1.5 Earth radii but not below or above that orbit. GOS clock are at 4.2 radio so the higher potential wins in their offset compared to sea level.

That's missing the point. Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth is not a perfect sphere.

Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?

BTW, I found the source for the map. http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/post/74287163429/have-you-ever-wondered-how-fast-you-are-spinning

Looking at a much larger and clearer map, it shows Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650 mph. Do you deny those speeds? Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different lengths for their seconds?

Ed

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Steve BH
At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.

Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?
BTW, I found the source for the map. http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/post/74287163429/have-you-ever-wondered-how-fast-you-are-spinning
Looking at a much larger and clearer map, it shows Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650 mph. Do you deny those speeds? Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different lengths for their seconds?

Reading is hard, isn't it? :-D

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Ed Lake
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the
poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040
miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while
turning in place.

Since 1905 we have learned two relevant facts:
1) The earth is not a perfect sphere (as Einstein implicitly assumed). The
earth is an oblate spheroid, and anywhere on the planet at mean sea
level (i.e. the geoid), clocks will remain in sync.
2) Clocks do NOT "tick faster or slower", they ALWAYS tick at their usual
rate, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or
where they might be located (e.g. at any gravitational potential). For
a cesium atomic oscillator that rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz, BY DEFINITION.

Note however, that when one COMPARES SIGNALS from clocks that are moving
differently (relative to each other), or are located at different gravitational
potentials, one observes Doppler shift and/or "gravitational time dilation" in
the SIGNALS.

It is manifestly impossible to directly compare such clocks,
one can only compare SIGNALS from them.

Post by Ed Lake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.htm

Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth

Post by Ed Lake
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate.

Not really -- first: that map shows SPEED RELATIVE TO THE ECI, not "time
ticking", and second: see #2 above. If one always considers clocks at the
altitude of mean sea level (the geoid), then they will all remain in sync, and
one could not claim "ticking at a different rate" (see #2 for why such claims
are always wrong).

Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is
moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. [...]

You are confused, and do not realize your confusion. Whenever you say "moving",
your MUST say relative to what that motion is measured. Here you apparently are
referencing to the ECI frame.

Post by Ed Lake
Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth
is not a perfect sphere.

Rather, he was correct in SR, which inherently neglects gravitation. He realized
the error when he understood gravitation much better, and with the advent of GR
we can calculate how signals from such clocks compare; calculations which agree
exquisitely with measurements.

Post by Ed Lake
Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does
it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?

Yes.

Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650
mph. Do you deny those speeds?

No, relative to the ECI.

Post by Ed Lake
Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different
lengths for their seconds?

Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the
second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions relative to
the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from clocks on the geoid
at those locations, then there will be no Doppler shifts. In practice, of
course, gravity applies.

You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.

Tom Roberts

[Frank Weisenberger]

Post by Tom Roberts
Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate,
and the second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133
hyperfine transition.
It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions
relative to the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from
clocks on the geoid at those locations, then there will be no Doppler
shifts. In practice, of course, gravity applies.
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.

This is nothing. In relativity you are giving me a NAND-gate which is not
a NAND-gate.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the
poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040
miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while
turning in place.

1) The earth is not a perfect sphere (as Einstein implicitly assumed). The
earth is an oblate spheroid, and anywhere on the planet at mean sea
level (i.e. the geoid), clocks will remain in sync.
2) Clocks do NOT "tick faster or slower", they ALWAYS tick at their usual
rate, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or
where they might be located (e.g. at any gravitational potential). For
a cesium atomic oscillator that rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz, BY DEFINITION.

And, "hz" means "hertz" which is "the SI unit of frequency, equal to one cycle PER SECOND." Which means that if your SECOND is longer because you are moving, you still get 9,192,631,770 Hz, but it is not the same rate you get when you are stationary, even though you get 9,192,631,770 Hz then, too. The length of a SECOND is different, therefore they cycle rates are different. That is what Relativity is all about.

Post by Tom Roberts
Note however, that when one COMPA"RES SIGNALS from clocks that are moving
differently (relative to each other), or are located at different gravitational
potentials, one observes Doppler shift and/or "gravitational time dilation" in
the SIGNALS.
It is manifestly impossible to directly compare such clocks,
one can only compare SIGNALS from them.

And, as usual, all you can do is recite memorized words. You cannot explain what the word "signals" means in that context.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.htm

Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth

Post by Ed Lake
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate.

Not really -- first: that map shows SPEED RELATIVE TO THE ECI, not "time
ticking", and second: see #2 above. If one always considers clocks at the
altitude of mean sea level (the geoid), then they will all remain in sync, and
one could not claim "ticking at a different rate" (see #2 for why such claims
are always wrong).

Here's what the author says:

------ start quote -----
Though this is an approximation, in an effort to be as accurate as possible, I used the length of a sidereal day (23 hrs, 56 min, 4 sec), which is a full 360° rotation of Earth. Because Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, I varied the radius as a function of latitude when calculating the tangential speed. The polar radius is 3950 miles and the equatorial radius is 3963 miles; I approximated the radius at other latitudes via a linear interpolation. This has no visible effect on the curve, though. Using the average radius of the earth (3959 miles) as a constant changes the global tangential speeds by <1 mph. Topography of the Earth is equally unimportant for this level of accuracy because the difference between a mountain peak and the bottom of the ocean is trivial compared to the radius of the Earth. If, hypothetically, Mt. Everest’s peak (5.5 miles above datum) and the deepest part of the Mariana Trench (6.8 miles below datum) were both located along the equator, the difference in tangential speed caused by the 12.3 mile elevation difference would only be about 3 mph, or less than a third of a percent of the equator’s 1040 mph tangential speed.
----- end quote ----

The discussion was about MOTION. Pentcho Valev argued

"Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

"Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system. "

Your argument seems to be that all clocks tick at the same rate. So, neither of Valev's conclusions are true.

My point was that Miami moves faster than London as the Earth spins on its axis, and there is no scenario where anyone can argue that someone in Miami sees London as moving faster.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is
moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. [...]

You are confused, and do not realize your confusion. Whenever you say "moving",
your MUST say relative to what that motion is measured. Here you apparently are
referencing to the ECI frame.

In Einstein's theories, there is no "ECI frame." A person in Miami is in a different "frame of reference" than a person in London.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth
is not a perfect sphere.

Rather, he was correct in SR, which inherently neglects gravitation. He realized
the error when he understood gravitation much better, and with the advent of GR
we can calculate how signals from such clocks compare; calculations which agree
exquisitely with measurements.

Yes, as we've argue before, they do that with GPS satellites. They set the GPS clocks to run 7 microseconds faster per day when they are on Earth, so that when the clocks are in orbit where time moves at a slower rate, the clocks will tick at the SAME rate as clocks on Earth. That 7 microsecond rate is 45 microseconds for GR minus 38 microseconds for SR.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does
it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?

Yes.

Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650
mph. Do you deny those speeds?

No, relative to the ECI.

Post by Ed Lake
Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different
lengths for their seconds?

Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the
second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass. So, you still get the same number of cycles, but during a SECOND OF A DIFFERENT LENGTH. So, the rate of time is different even though you get the same measurement in both places. As stated before, that is what Relativity is all about.

You've stated your BELIEFS about all this before, even though there are dozens of experiments which show you are WRONG. You have BELIEFS about how all those experiments do not show what the experimenters claim they show - because of some "signals" which you cannot explain.

Post by Tom Roberts
It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions relative to
the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from clocks on the geoid
at those locations, then there will be no Doppler shifts. In practice, of
course, gravity applies.
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.
Tom Roberts

You STILL have not learned anything. I don't pity you. I'm just here to help you understand.

Ed

[Dirk Van de moortel]

[snip to essence]]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.
Tom Roberts

You STILL have not learned anything. I don't pity you. I'm just
here to help you understand.
Ed

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Loading Image...

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.

The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts

It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Einstein's First Postulate says that physics experiments performed in a moving spaceship will get the same results as physics experiments in a lab on earth.

However, TIME DILATION makes the length of a second DIFFERENT in the two frames, because a second is longer when aboard a fast moving spaceship.

Therefore, if you COMPARE lengths of a second in the two locations, you will see that while the experiments APPEARED to get the same results, the results were actually DIFFERENT. THAT IS WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand basic physics.

Ed

[Python]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts

It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

[David Waite]

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts

It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Post by David Waite

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.

Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.

[David Waite]

Post by Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž

Post by David Waite

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.
Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

There you go repeating your lie. If ANYONE here could debunk me by doing it we both full well know they WOULD.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by David Waite

Post by Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž

Post by David Waite

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.
Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

There you go repeating your lie. If ANYONE here could debunk me by doing
it we both full well know they WOULD.

Never underestimate the value of not biting bait.

[David Waite]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by David Waite

Post by Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž

Post by David Waite

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.
Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

There you go repeating your lie. If ANYONE here could debunk me by doing
it we both full well know they WOULD.

Never underestimate the value of not biting bait.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Yes I already know that you can't do it either. Otherwise you already would have. Any one of you would absolutely LOVE to debunk me just like you do any one else, even if they misspell your Vs you're. You're just such a fake that you can't even use a program to do it.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by David Waite

Post by Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž

Post by David Waite

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

Not providing calculation is not evidence
of not being able to make it.
Being put in general,
absence of ability evidence is not evidence of disability.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

There you go repeating your lie. If ANYONE here could debunk me by doing
it we both full well know they WOULD.

Never underestimate the value of not biting bait.

Indeed, if no biting bait would take place here, this group
would be a vacuum :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Python]

David Waite wrote:
...

Post by David Waite
If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Python

Post by David Waite
If Tom were a physicist he could calculate an Einstein tensor from a metric. He can't.

What the hell are you talking about?

Tom is looking for the Riemann and the Weyl tensors among the differential equations of the Einstein tensor. No one knowledgeable in GR would attempt to go on such a wild goose hunt. <shrug>

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

And we all are observing trees running around and
Sun rotating Earth. Right, poor halfbrain?

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

And we all are observing trees running around and
Sun rotating Earth. Right, poor halfbrain?

Wozzie-boy's problem is that he is too lazy to run. He just lies there
on the ground like an overweight pig, oinking and defecating all over the
trees.

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

And we all are observing trees running around and
Sun rotating Earth. Right, poor halfbrain?

Wozzie-boy's problem is that he is too lazy to run. He just lies there
on the ground like an overweight pig, oinking and defecating all over the
trees.

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.

Definitely. Hint: Tom is a physicist and you are a graphomaniac with
schizoid symptoms.

And we all are observing trees running around and
Sun rotating Earth. Right, poor halfbrain?

Wozzie-boy's problem is that he is too lazy to run. He just lies there
on the ground like an overweight pig, oinking and defecating all over the
trees.

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.

That old saw again! How bo-o-o-oring. Wozzie-boy is too lazy to think
up a new tepid comeback.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts

It is certainly clear that one of us doesn't understand basic physics.
Einstein's First Postulate says that physics experiments performed in a
moving spaceship will get the same results as physics experiments in a lab on earth.

Nothing in relativity says the results will be the same. The postulate you
mention says that the identical laws of physics apply in all inertial
frames.

You have long demonstrated that you cannot read.

Post by Ed Lake
However, TIME DILATION makes the length of a second DIFFERENT in the two
frames, because a second is longer when aboard a fast moving spaceship.
Therefore, if you COMPARE lengths of a second in the two locations, you
will see that while the experiments APPEARED to get the same results, the
results were actually DIFFERENT. THAT IS WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT.
If you do not understand that, then you do not understand basic physics.
Ed

[RichD]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

Einstein's First Postulate says that physics experiments performed
in a moving spaceship will get the same results as a lab on earth.
However, TIME DILATION makes the length of a second DIFFERENT in
the two frames, because a second is longer when aboard a fast moving
spaceship.

Ed believes 'time' is something separate, independent, of a clock.
He doesn't - can't - understand that time is DEFINED by a clock.

Post by Ed Lake
Therefore, if you COMPARE lengths of a second in the two locations,
you will see that while the experiments APPEARED to get the same
results, the results were actually DIFFERENT.

Ed believes in a 'reality' which is independent of appearances.
He doesn't understand that reality is DEFINED by 'appearances',
that is, the observed results of experiments.

A million years of evolution is hard to overcome -


--
Rich

[Ed Lake]

Post by RichD

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

Einstein's First Postulate says that physics experiments performed
in a moving spaceship will get the same results as a lab on earth.
However, TIME DILATION makes the length of a second DIFFERENT in
the two frames, because a second is longer when aboard a fast moving
spaceship.

Ed believes 'time' is something separate, independent, of a clock.
He doesn't - can't - understand that time is DEFINED by a clock.

No, time is MEASURED by clocks. Time IS separate and independent of a clock. Without clocks, we would still have time. Things would still age. Things would still spin. Things would still decay. There just wouldn't be any clocks for humans to use to MEASURE the rates of aging, spinning and decaying.

Post by RichD

Post by Ed Lake
Therefore, if you COMPARE lengths of a second in the two locations,
you will see that while the experiments APPEARED to get the same
results, the results were actually DIFFERENT.

Ed believes in a 'reality' which is independent of appearances.
He doesn't understand that reality is DEFINED by 'appearances',
that is, the observed results of experiments.
A million years of evolution is hard to overcome -
--
Rich

I firmly believe what Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

However, there ARE such things as "illusions" and "misconceptions." If your clock is running slower than mine, and you read book in 8 hours your time, and I read a book in 8 hours my time, I'm a faster reader than you are. It's just an "illusion" or a "misconception" or an ERROR that you think we both read the book in the same amount of time.

You may not understand that, but, as you say, "A million years of evolution is hard to overcome." Maybe you just cannot imagine that clocks can tick at different rates.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."

What does "usual rate" mean? It has been explained to you many times that the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster because it was farther from the center of the earth. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

But you dismiss this, seemingly arguing that the NIST doesn't know what it is doing because they ignore the "SIGNALS" that you are incapable of explaining.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!

What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

If, as you claim, clocks actually did tick at different rates, then all of SR
and GR would be falsified -- you are DOUBLE COUNTING. That is, SR and GR predict
"time dilation" in SIGNALS, and if the clocks also "dilated" then the
predictions of these theories would not agree with the measurements.

Of course neither SR nor GR actually predicts that clocks vary
in tick rate. That is a fantasy of your own making. Probably
because you are unable to distinguish between measuring clocks
and measuring SIGNALS from clocks.

Bottom line: YOU ARE WRONG.

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents? And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot explain) change everything?

Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment? And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Are you the only person on earth who understands these magical "SIGNALS"?

Post by Tom Roberts
If, as you claim, clocks actually did tick at different rates, then all of SR
and GR would be falsified -- you are DOUBLE COUNTING. That is, SR and GR predict
"time dilation" in SIGNALS, and if the clocks also "dilated" then the
predictions of these theories would not agree with the measurements.

More gibberish about magical "SIGNALS." There is no "double counting." A clock is affected both by SR and GR. We see that with clocks aboard GPS satellites. They run FAST by 45 microseconds per day due to GR, and they run SLOW by 38 microseconds per day due to SR. The net effect is that the clocks would run FAST by 7 microseconds per day IF they weren't built to run SLOW by 7 microseconds per day before being launched. When in space, the clocks match ground clocks. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Post by Tom Roberts
Of course neither SR nor GR actually predicts that clocks vary
in tick rate. That is a fantasy of your own making. Probably
because you are unable to distinguish between measuring clocks
and measuring SIGNALS from clocks.
Bottom line: YOU ARE WRONG.

No, you are wrong. BOTH SR and GR predict that clocks vary in tick rate (depending upon speed and gravity). That is what Relativity is all about. Time is slightly different for you than for me because you are farther south and almost certainly at a different distance from the center of the earth.

As long as you keep making baseless DECLARATIONS of your OPINIONS, nothing will be resolved. You have to EXPLAIN what your magical "SIGNALS" are and how they work in the various experiments. And, if you cannot explain because everyone else in the world is just too stupid to understand, then that explains the disagreement we have and why it cannot be resolved.

Ed

[JanPB]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.

--
Jan

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured.

Experiments made by imagined twins in imagined rockets.
Real clocks of real GPS indicate t'=t with the precision
of an acceptable error. Just like serious clocks always did.

[Ed Lake]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

No, he's telling me what he BELIEVES the experiments measured.

Evidently, neither you nor Tom Roberts can explain anything. It's all just about what you BELIEVE. And you're telling me I have to take the courses you took, and read what you read, and that way I will BELIEVE what you BELIEVE.

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Correct. They run against my understanding and agree with your BELIEFS. So, you're saying I have to convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM if I want to agree with you. Why on earth would you think I want to agree with you?

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Same as above.

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.
--
Jan

Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying
they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

No, he's telling me what he BELIEVES the experiments measured.
Evidently, neither you nor Tom Roberts can explain anything. It's all
just about what you BELIEVE. And you're telling me I have to take the
courses you took, and read what you read, and that way I will BELIEVE what you BELIEVE.

You will decide what you choose to believe. That is always true.
However, to decide without benefit of reading and education is a fool’s
choice.
That—bottom line—is the path you have elected.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot
explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Correct. They run against my understanding and agree with your BELIEFS.
So, you're saying I have to convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM if I want to
agree with you. Why on earth would you think I want to agree with you?

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Same as above.

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other
experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND
clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.
--
Jan

Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS,"
not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to
EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I
UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

Facts:
1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).

2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Paparios
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. We have GPS, everyone
can check what proper equipment really do.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf

No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."

So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Post by Paparios
Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

And the facts say you are wrong.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Post by Paparios
Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

And the facts say you are wrong.
Ed

I wrote:

"So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth."

That can be phrased better. I should have written:

"So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times THE SIGNALS WERE SENT FROM the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth."

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS,"
not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able
to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert
to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer.
I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people
have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity.

And you can’t do this while remaining uneducated on the subject. Period.

Post by Ed Lake
And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE
about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book
they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's
Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the
postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I
UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are
always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per
SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the
ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite
versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7
microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That
way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the
clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER
per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due
to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special
Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.)
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The
engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects
when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract
the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were
designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so
that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would
appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference
atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS
satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone
or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple
signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The
satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always
visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12
visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that
"ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a
second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position
and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently
visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known
positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system
receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at
the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS
satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that
allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Post by Paparios
Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

And the facts say you are wrong.
Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

All measurements are LOCAL, because for anything which is not in your locality, you need SIGNALS to be informed of the situation at the far place.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".

You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Wrong....Do you know what GPS satellites transmit? Those are digital SIGNALS which, among other data, include the location and local time of each GPS satellite. Your GPS receiver has to solve a system of equations with the data of at least 4 satellite to compute its own location. Som details are given in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

Post by Paparios
All measurements are LOCAL, because for anything which is not in your locality, you need SIGNALS to be informed of the situation at the far place.

Yes, and the LOCAL measurement of Time in orbit is different from the LOCAL measurement of Time on the ground. If a second is defined as X cycles of some particle or atom, the farther you are from the center of the earth, the faster you will count X cycles. You can COMPARE measurements by synchronizing the start times and then comparing the end times.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

The PURPOSE of the GPS satellites is to determine where you are ON EARTH. To do that, the clocks on the GPS satellites must be synchronized with clocks on earth. That way, when the satellite emits a "signal" to your car at a specific time, your car's GPS system can tell how far away that satellite is by how long it took the signal to reach your car AT THE KNOWN SPEED OF LIGHT. Do that with 3 satellites, and the GPS system in your car can triangulate your location on earth.

If the GPS clock was NOT set to run slower on earth, it would run too fast when in orbit and the GPS system would be worthless. Can't you understand that?

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Wrong....Do you know what GPS satellites transmit? Those are digital SIGNALS which, among other data, include the location and local time of each GPS satellite. Your GPS receiver has to solve a system of equations with the data of at least 4 satellite to compute its own location. Som details are given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals

Yes, I know that. But you seem to put some magical powers in the "SIGNALS." In reality, they just tell you where the satellite is located at a specific time - using a clock on the satellite that is synchronized with the clock in your ground-based GPS system. Since "SIGNALS" travel at a KNOWN speed - the speed of light - knowing when a signal was sent and when it was received will tell you the distance between sender and receiver IF THE CLOCKS ARE SYNCHRONIZED.

The clocks are SYNCHRONIZED by building them to run SLOWER on the ground, so that they will run AT THE SAME SPEED as ground clocks when they are in orbit.

That is because TIME runs FASTER where GPS satellites orbit.

It is really VERY simple and straightforward. Why can't you understand it?

Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

So illustrate us about how would you measure, from your house, the ticking of an GPS satellite clock orbiting at 22000 km, without using signals received from that satellite clock.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

It has been told to you many times. The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the onboard atomic clocks (There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C). Those signals are received at the ground receivers at a multiple of 10.23 MHz.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

They KNOW that atomic clocks click in orbit at the very same rate they click on the ground, before launching. That is the reason, those clocks are preadjusted here on the ground, before launching, at 10.22999999543 MHz and, sure enough, they continue to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz while they are orbiting. The signals the GPS sends to the ground follow a path through spacetime, which makes them to be recieved at the ground at 10.23 MHz. This is absolutely not a problem with the clocks, but of how the information gets to the ground.

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Paparios
The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple
of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the
onboard atomic clocks...

This is the chipping rate not the RF carrier. If the chipping rate is off by a few percentage, the receiver should have no problems decoding the signal embedded in the broadband. So, the atomic clock rate does not matter. What matters is that the time (not clock tick rate) on board each of the satellites has to be synchronized with the others. Get a clue. <shrug>

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

So illustrate us about how would you measure, from your house, the ticking of an GPS satellite clock orbiting at 22000 km, without using signals received from that satellite clock.

You're talking gibberish. No one measures the ticking of GPS clocks in orbit from my house. What is measured is the TIME it takes a signal to GET to my house from the satellite in orbit. To know that, I need (1) to know when the signal was sent, and (2) I need my clock to be synchronized with the clock on the satellite.

If I have those two things, I can compute the distance to the satellite. And if I can do that with two more satellites at about the same time, I can compute (triangulate) the location of my house.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

It has been told to you many times. The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the onboard atomic clocks (There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C). Those signals are received at the ground receivers at a multiple of 10.23 MHz.

That's just meaningless gibberish that you have apparently memorized. WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS??????? No one cares what the frequency is or how many different frequencies they use. That has nothing to do with anything. If you think it does, you need to EXPLAIN.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

They KNOW that atomic clocks click in orbit at the very same rate they click on the ground, before launching. That is the reason, those clocks are preadjusted here on the ground, before launching, at 10.22999999543 MHz and, sure enough, they continue to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz while they are orbiting. The signals the GPS sends to the ground follow a path through spacetime, which makes them to be recieved at the ground at 10.23 MHz. This is absolutely not a problem with the clocks, but of how the information gets to the ground.

FALSE!!!!! They KNOW that atomic clocks click (or tick) in orbit at a DIFFERENT rate than identical clocks on the ground before launching. In orbit clocks click (or tick) at a FASTER rate. So, when they BUILD the clocks that will be put in orbit, they BUILD them to run SLOWER on the ground. That way, when they are put in orbit they will run at the same speed as clocks on the ground.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? I even provided sources for you. But you just mindlessly repeat what you BELIEVE.

Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

So illustrate us about how would you measure, from your house, the ticking of an GPS satellite clock orbiting at 22000 km, without using signals received from that satellite clock.

You're talking gibberish. No one measures the ticking of GPS clocks in orbit from my house. What is measured is the TIME it takes a signal to GET to my house from the satellite in orbit. To know that, I need (1) to know when the signal was sent, and (2) I need my clock to be synchronized with the clock on the satellite.
If I have those two things, I can compute the distance to the satellite. And if I can do that with two more satellites at about the same time, I can compute (triangulate) the location of my house.

From https://www.courses.psu.edu/aersp/aersp055_r81/satellites/gps_details.html

The GPS calculation in the receiver uses four equations in the four unknowns x,
y, z, tc, where x, y, z are the receiver’s coordinates, and tc is the time
correction for the GPS receiver’s clock. The four equations are:

d1 = c(t_t,1 - t_r,1 + tc) = sqrt((x1-x)^2+(y1-y)^2+sqrt((z1-z)^2)
d2 = c(t_t,2 - t_r,2 + tc) = sqrt((x2-x)^2+(y2-y)^2+sqrt((z2-z)^2)
d3 = c(t_t,3 - t_r,3 + tc) = sqrt((x3-x)^2+(y3-y)^2+sqrt((z3-z)^2)
d4 = c(t_t,4 - t_r,4 + tc) = sqrt((x4-x)^2+(y4-y)^2+sqrt((z4-z)^2)

where

c = speed of light (3 x 10^8 m/s)
t_t,1, t_t,2, t_t,3, t_t,4 = times that GPS satellites 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, transmitted their signals (these times are provided to the
receiver as part of the information that is transmitted).
t_r,1, t_r,2, t_r,3, t_r,4 = times that the signals from GPS satellites 1,
2, 3, and 4, respectively, are received (according to the inaccurate GPS
receiver’s clock)
x1, y1, z1 = coordinates of GPS satellite 1 (these coordinates are provided
to the receiver as part of the information that is transmitted); similar meaning
for x2, y2, z2, etc.

The receiver solves these equations simultaneously to determine x, y, z, and tc.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

It has been told to you many times. The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the onboard atomic clocks (There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C). Those signals are received at the ground receivers at a multiple of 10.23 MHz.

That's just meaningless gibberish that you have apparently memorized. WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS??????? No one cares what the frequency is or how many different frequencies they use. That has nothing to do with anything. If you think it does, you need to EXPLAIN.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System:

Each GPS satellite continuously broadcasts a navigation message on L1 (C/A and
P/Y) and L2 (P/Y) frequencies at a rate of 50 bits per second (see bitrate).
Each complete message takes 750 seconds (12 1/2 minutes) to complete. The
message structure has a basic format of a 1500-bit-long frame made up of five
subframes, each subframe being 300 bits (6 seconds) long. Subframes 4 and 5 are
subcommutated 25 times each, so that a complete data message requires the
transmission of 25 full frames. Each subframe consists of ten words, each 30
bits long. Thus, with 300 bits in a subframe times 5 subframes in a frame times
25 frames in a message, each message is 37,500 bits long. At a transmission rate
of 50-bit/s, this gives 750 seconds to transmit an entire almanac message (GPS).
Each 30-second frame begins precisely on the minute or half-minute as *indicated
by the atomic clock on each satellite*.

The first subframe of each frame encodes the week number and the time within the
week, as well as the data about the health of the satellite. The second and the
third subframes contain the ephemeris – the precise orbit for the satellite. The
fourth and fifth subframes contain the almanac, which contains coarse orbit and
status information for up to 32 satellites in the constellation as well as data
related to error correction. Thus, to obtain an accurate satellite location from this transmitted message, the receiver must demodulate the message from each
satellite it includes in its solution for 18 to 30 seconds. To collect all
transmitted almanacs, the receiver must demodulate the message for 732 to 750
seconds or 12 1/2 minutes.

All satellites broadcast at the same frequencies, encoding signals using unique
code division multiple access (CDMA) so receivers can distinguish individual
satellites from each other. The system uses two distinct CDMA encoding types:
the coarse/acquisition (C/A) code, which is accessible by the general public,
and the precise (P(Y)) code, which is encrypted so that only the U.S. military
and other NATO nations who have been given access to the encryption code can
access it.

The ephemeris is updated every 2 hours and is generally valid for 4 hours, with
provisions for updates every 6 hours or longer in non-nominal conditions. The
almanac is updated typically every 24 hours. Additionally, data for a few weeks
following is uploaded in case of transmission updates that delay data upload.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

They KNOW that atomic clocks click in orbit at the very same rate they click on the ground, before launching. That is the reason, those clocks are preadjusted here on the ground, before launching, at 10.22999999543 MHz and, sure enough, they continue to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz while they are orbiting. The signals the GPS sends to the ground follow a path through spacetime, which makes them to be recieved at the ground at 10.23 MHz. This is absolutely not a problem with the clocks, but of how the information gets to the ground.

FALSE!!!!! They KNOW that atomic clocks click (or tick) in orbit at a DIFFERENT rate than identical clocks on the ground before launching. In orbit clocks click (or tick) at a FASTER rate. So, when they BUILD the clocks that will be put in orbit, they BUILD them to run SLOWER on the ground. That way, when they are put in orbit they will run at the same speed as clocks on the ground.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I even provided sources for you. But you just mindlessly repeat what you BELIEVE.
Ed

From https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf section 3.3.1.1

3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.

For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in
this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one
centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the
L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III and subsequent
satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to
the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about
the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal
frequency (see Table 3-Vc). The carrier frequencies for the L1
and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within
the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on
the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates --
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset
to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
∆f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23
MHz offset by a ∆f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz
for L1 and L2, respectively.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

So illustrate us about how would you measure, from your house, the ticking of an GPS satellite clock orbiting at 22000 km, without using signals received from that satellite clock.

You're talking gibberish. No one measures the ticking of GPS clocks in orbit from my house. What is measured is the TIME it takes a signal to GET to my house from the satellite in orbit. To know that, I need (1) to know when the signal was sent, and (2) I need my clock to be synchronized with the clock on the satellite.
If I have those two things, I can compute the distance to the satellite. And if I can do that with two more satellites at about the same time, I can compute (triangulate) the location of my house.

From https://www.courses.psu.edu/aersp/aersp055_r81/satellites/gps_details.html
The GPS calculation in the receiver uses four equations in the four unknowns x,
y, z, tc, where x, y, z are the receiver’s coordinates, and tc is the time
d1 = c(t_t,1 - t_r,1 + tc) = sqrt((x1-x)^2+(y1-y)^2+sqrt((z1-z)^2)
d2 = c(t_t,2 - t_r,2 + tc) = sqrt((x2-x)^2+(y2-y)^2+sqrt((z2-z)^2)
d3 = c(t_t,3 - t_r,3 + tc) = sqrt((x3-x)^2+(y3-y)^2+sqrt((z3-z)^2)
d4 = c(t_t,4 - t_r,4 + tc) = sqrt((x4-x)^2+(y4-y)^2+sqrt((z4-z)^2)
where
c = speed of light (3 x 10^8 m/s)
t_t,1, t_t,2, t_t,3, t_t,4 = times that GPS satellites 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, transmitted their signals (these times are provided to the
receiver as part of the information that is transmitted).
t_r,1, t_r,2, t_r,3, t_r,4 = times that the signals from GPS satellites 1,
2, 3, and 4, respectively, are received (according to the inaccurate GPS
receiver’s clock)
x1, y1, z1 = coordinates of GPS satellite 1 (these coordinates are provided
to the receiver as part of the information that is transmitted); similar meaning
for x2, y2, z2, etc.
The receiver solves these equations simultaneously to determine x, y, z, and tc.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

It has been told to you many times. The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the onboard atomic clocks (There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C). Those signals are received at the ground receivers at a multiple of 10.23 MHz.

That's just meaningless gibberish that you have apparently memorized. WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS??????? No one cares what the frequency is or how many different frequencies they use. That has nothing to do with anything. If you think it does, you need to EXPLAIN.

Each GPS satellite continuously broadcasts a navigation message on L1 (C/A and
P/Y) and L2 (P/Y) frequencies at a rate of 50 bits per second (see bitrate).
Each complete message takes 750 seconds (12 1/2 minutes) to complete. The
message structure has a basic format of a 1500-bit-long frame made up of five
subframes, each subframe being 300 bits (6 seconds) long. Subframes 4 and 5 are
subcommutated 25 times each, so that a complete data message requires the
transmission of 25 full frames. Each subframe consists of ten words, each 30
bits long. Thus, with 300 bits in a subframe times 5 subframes in a frame times
25 frames in a message, each message is 37,500 bits long. At a transmission rate
of 50-bit/s, this gives 750 seconds to transmit an entire almanac message (GPS).
Each 30-second frame begins precisely on the minute or half-minute as *indicated
by the atomic clock on each satellite*.
The first subframe of each frame encodes the week number and the time within the
week, as well as the data about the health of the satellite. The second and the
third subframes contain the ephemeris – the precise orbit for the satellite. The
fourth and fifth subframes contain the almanac, which contains coarse orbit and
status information for up to 32 satellites in the constellation as well as data
related to error correction. Thus, to obtain an accurate satellite location from this transmitted message, the receiver must demodulate the message from each
satellite it includes in its solution for 18 to 30 seconds. To collect all
transmitted almanacs, the receiver must demodulate the message for 732 to 750
seconds or 12 1/2 minutes.
All satellites broadcast at the same frequencies, encoding signals using unique
code division multiple access (CDMA) so receivers can distinguish individual
the coarse/acquisition (C/A) code, which is accessible by the general public,
and the precise (P(Y)) code, which is encrypted so that only the U.S. military
and other NATO nations who have been given access to the encryption code can
access it.
The ephemeris is updated every 2 hours and is generally valid for 4 hours, with
provisions for updates every 6 hours or longer in non-nominal conditions. The
almanac is updated typically every 24 hours. Additionally, data for a few weeks
following is uploaded in case of transmission updates that delay data upload.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

They KNOW that atomic clocks click in orbit at the very same rate they click on the ground, before launching. That is the reason, those clocks are preadjusted here on the ground, before launching, at 10.22999999543 MHz and, sure enough, they continue to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz while they are orbiting. The signals the GPS sends to the ground follow a path through spacetime, which makes them to be recieved at the ground at 10.23 MHz. This is absolutely not a problem with the clocks, but of how the information gets to the ground.

FALSE!!!!! They KNOW that atomic clocks click (or tick) in orbit at a DIFFERENT rate than identical clocks on the ground before launching. In orbit clocks click (or tick) at a FASTER rate. So, when they BUILD the clocks that will be put in orbit, they BUILD them to run SLOWER on the ground. That way, when they are put in orbit they will run at the same speed as clocks on the ground.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I even provided sources for you. But you just mindlessly repeat what you BELIEVE.
Ed

From https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf section 3.3.1.1
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.
For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in
this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one
centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the
L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III and subsequent
satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to
the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about
the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal
frequency (see Table 3-Vc). The carrier frequencies for the L1
and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within
the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on
the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates --
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset
to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
∆f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23
MHz offset by a ∆f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz
for L1 and L2, respectively.

All you really need to understand is what is in the Wikipedia link you provided:

----- start quote -----

"Conceptually, the receiver measures the TOAs (according to its own clock) of four satellite signals. From the TOAs and the TOTs, the receiver forms four time of flight (TOF) values, which are (given the speed of light) approximately equivalent to receiver-satellite ranges. The receiver then computes its three-dimensional position and clock deviation from the four TOFs.

"In practice the receiver position (in three dimensional Cartesian coordinates with origin at the Earth's center) and the offset of the receiver clock relative to the GPS time are computed simultaneously, using the navigation equations to process the TOFs."

----- end quote ------

Simplified, it says what I said: Knowing the time of arrival (TOA) of a signal from a satellite and the time of flight (TOF), and a code identifying a particular satellite, your receiver can determine how far you are from that satellite. And by measuring the distance to three different satellites, your receiver can triangulate your location on the surface of the earth.

All the mathematical gibberish you've memorized and cited doesn't help. You have to understand the basics. It's not that complicated.

Here's a paper I just found which might be of interest: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/24346/15401

It says that GPS satellites prove that the speed of the observer CAN be added to or subtracted from the speed of light. When the earth is spinning toward the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c+v, where v is the speed of the earth. And when the earth is spinning away from the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c-v.

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake wrote

Here's a paper I just found which might be of interest: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/24346/15401

It says that GPS satellites prove that the speed of the observer CAN be added to or subtracted from the speed of light. When the earth is spinning toward the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c+v, where v is the speed of the earth. And when the earth is spinning away from the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c-v.

Ed

That’s Genius Ed !!!

That solves Einstein’s Dilemma!!!

Genius !!!

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

So illustrate us about how would you measure, from your house, the ticking of an GPS satellite clock orbiting at 22000 km, without using signals received from that satellite clock.

You're talking gibberish. No one measures the ticking of GPS clocks in orbit from my house. What is measured is the TIME it takes a signal to GET to my house from the satellite in orbit. To know that, I need (1) to know when the signal was sent, and (2) I need my clock to be synchronized with the clock on the satellite.
If I have those two things, I can compute the distance to the satellite. And if I can do that with two more satellites at about the same time, I can compute (triangulate) the location of my house.

From https://www.courses.psu.edu/aersp/aersp055_r81/satellites/gps_details.html
The GPS calculation in the receiver uses four equations in the four unknowns x,
y, z, tc, where x, y, z are the receiver’s coordinates, and tc is the time
d1 = c(t_t,1 - t_r,1 + tc) = sqrt((x1-x)^2+(y1-y)^2+sqrt((z1-z)^2)
d2 = c(t_t,2 - t_r,2 + tc) = sqrt((x2-x)^2+(y2-y)^2+sqrt((z2-z)^2)
d3 = c(t_t,3 - t_r,3 + tc) = sqrt((x3-x)^2+(y3-y)^2+sqrt((z3-z)^2)
d4 = c(t_t,4 - t_r,4 + tc) = sqrt((x4-x)^2+(y4-y)^2+sqrt((z4-z)^2)
where
c = speed of light (3 x 10^8 m/s)
t_t,1, t_t,2, t_t,3, t_t,4 = times that GPS satellites 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, transmitted their signals (these times are provided to the
receiver as part of the information that is transmitted).
t_r,1, t_r,2, t_r,3, t_r,4 = times that the signals from GPS satellites 1,
2, 3, and 4, respectively, are received (according to the inaccurate GPS
receiver’s clock)
x1, y1, z1 = coordinates of GPS satellite 1 (these coordinates are provided
to the receiver as part of the information that is transmitted); similar meaning
for x2, y2, z2, etc.
The receiver solves these equations simultaneously to determine x, y, z, and tc.

Of course you did not read the link....You need FOUR SIGNALS FROM FOUR SATELLITES to determine your GPS receiver location.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

It has been told to you many times. The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the onboard atomic clocks (There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C). Those signals are received at the ground receivers at a multiple of 10.23 MHz.

That's just meaningless gibberish that you have apparently memorized. WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS??????? No one cares what the frequency is or how many different frequencies they use. That has nothing to do with anything. If you think it does, you need to EXPLAIN.

Each GPS satellite continuously broadcasts a navigation message on L1 (C/A and
P/Y) and L2 (P/Y) frequencies at a rate of 50 bits per second (see bitrate).
Each complete message takes 750 seconds (12 1/2 minutes) to complete. The
message structure has a basic format of a 1500-bit-long frame made up of five
subframes, each subframe being 300 bits (6 seconds) long. Subframes 4 and 5 are
subcommutated 25 times each, so that a complete data message requires the
transmission of 25 full frames. Each subframe consists of ten words, each 30
bits long. Thus, with 300 bits in a subframe times 5 subframes in a frame times
25 frames in a message, each message is 37,500 bits long. At a transmission rate
of 50-bit/s, this gives 750 seconds to transmit an entire almanac message (GPS).
Each 30-second frame begins precisely on the minute or half-minute as *indicated
by the atomic clock on each satellite*.
The first subframe of each frame encodes the week number and the time within the
week, as well as the data about the health of the satellite. The second and the
third subframes contain the ephemeris – the precise orbit for the satellite. The
fourth and fifth subframes contain the almanac, which contains coarse orbit and
status information for up to 32 satellites in the constellation as well as data
related to error correction. Thus, to obtain an accurate satellite location from this transmitted message, the receiver must demodulate the message from each
satellite it includes in its solution for 18 to 30 seconds. To collect all
transmitted almanacs, the receiver must demodulate the message for 732 to 750
seconds or 12 1/2 minutes.
All satellites broadcast at the same frequencies, encoding signals using unique
code division multiple access (CDMA) so receivers can distinguish individual
the coarse/acquisition (C/A) code, which is accessible by the general public,
and the precise (P(Y)) code, which is encrypted so that only the U.S. military
and other NATO nations who have been given access to the encryption code can
access it.
The ephemeris is updated every 2 hours and is generally valid for 4 hours, with
provisions for updates every 6 hours or longer in non-nominal conditions. The
almanac is updated typically every 24 hours. Additionally, data for a few weeks
following is uploaded in case of transmission updates that delay data upload.

Again you did not read the provided text, even if you was the one who asked
"WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS". No wonder you continue to produce nonsense in your posts.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

They KNOW that atomic clocks click in orbit at the very same rate they click on the ground, before launching. That is the reason, those clocks are preadjusted here on the ground, before launching, at 10.22999999543 MHz and, sure enough, they continue to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz while they are orbiting. The signals the GPS sends to the ground follow a path through spacetime, which makes them to be recieved at the ground at 10.23 MHz. This is absolutely not a problem with the clocks, but of how the information gets to the ground.

FALSE!!!!! They KNOW that atomic clocks click (or tick) in orbit at a DIFFERENT rate than identical clocks on the ground before launching. In orbit clocks click (or tick) at a FASTER rate. So, when they BUILD the clocks that will be put in orbit, they BUILD them to run SLOWER on the ground. That way, when they are put in orbit they will run at the same speed as clocks on the ground.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I even provided sources for you. But you just mindlessly repeat what you BELIEVE.
Ed

From https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf section 3.3.1.1
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.
For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in
this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one
centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the
L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III and subsequent
satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to
the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about
the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal
frequency (see Table 3-Vc). The carrier frequencies for the L1
and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within
the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on
the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates --
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset
to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
∆f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23
MHz offset by a ∆f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz
for L1 and L2, respectively.

Again, no comments about what the people, who run the GPS system, say about the relativistic adjustment?

Post by Ed Lake
----- start quote -----
"Conceptually, the receiver measures the TOAs (according to its own clock) of four satellite signals. From the TOAs and the TOTs, the receiver forms four time of flight (TOF) values, which are (given the speed of light) approximately equivalent to receiver-satellite ranges. The receiver then computes its three-dimensional position and clock deviation from the four TOFs.
"In practice the receiver position (in three dimensional Cartesian coordinates with origin at the Earth's center) and the offset of the receiver clock relative to the GPS time are computed simultaneously, using the navigation equations to process the TOFs."
----- end quote ------
Simplified, it says what I said: Knowing the time of arrival (TOA) of a signal from a satellite and the time of flight (TOF), and a code identifying a particular satellite, your receiver can determine how far you are from that satellite. And by measuring the distance to three different satellites, your receiver can triangulate your location on the surface of the earth.

No, it does not say anything like that. Your level of understanding what is written is quite poor. You have to solve for 4 unknowns: the GPS receiver x,y,z locations and t_c, the current time of the GPS receiver. So you need 4 equations to do that and so you need the data from 4 GPS satellites!!!!

Post by Ed Lake
All the mathematical gibberish you've memorized and cited doesn't help. You have to understand the basics. It's not that complicated.

I have not memorized nothing of what I hve written. If you knew how to read, you would recognize the provided links from which the information was taken. It is not that complicated....

Post by Ed Lake
Here's a paper I just found which might be of interest: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/24346/15401
It says that GPS satellites prove that the speed of the observer CAN be added to or subtracted from the speed of light. When the earth is spinning toward the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c+v, where v is the speed of the earth. And when the earth is spinning away from the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c-v.
Ed

That paper is wrong in multiple ways, the most obvious one is not recognizing the use of the composition of velocities in Special Relativity. See for instance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

"Velocities (speeds) do not simply add. If the observer in S measures an object moving along the x axis at velocity u, then the observer in the S′ system, a frame of reference moving at velocity v in the x direction with respect to S, will measure the object moving with velocity u′ where (from the Lorentz transformations above):

u′ = u − v /(1 − uv / c^2)

The other frame S will measure:

u = u′ + v /(1 + u′v / c^2)

Notice that if the object were moving at the speed of light in the S system (i.e. u = c), then it would also be moving at the speed of light in the S′ system. Also, if both u and v are small with respect to the speed of light, we will recover the intuitive Galilean transformation of velocities

u′ ≈ u − v

The usual example given is that of a train (frame S′ above) traveling due east with a velocity v with respect to the tracks (frame S). A child inside the train throws a baseball due east with a velocity u′ with respect to the train. In nonrelativistic physics, an observer at rest on the tracks will measure the velocity of the baseball (due east) as u = u′ + v, while in special relativity this is no longer true; instead the velocity of the baseball (due east) is given by the second equation: u = (u′ + v)/(1 + u′v/c2). Again, there is nothing special about the x or east directions. This formalism applies to any direction by considering parallel and perpendicular components of motion to the direction of relative velocity v.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Look, you can´t measure the ticking of the atomic clock aboard a satellite from the ground. Do you understand this?

They DON'T, but they CAN. They DON'T because they KNOW what the differences are. The differences are defined by General Relativity and Special Relativity. So, there is no point in demonstrating it by doing measurements.

So illustrate us about how would you measure, from your house, the ticking of an GPS satellite clock orbiting at 22000 km, without using signals received from that satellite clock.

You're talking gibberish. No one measures the ticking of GPS clocks in orbit from my house. What is measured is the TIME it takes a signal to GET to my house from the satellite in orbit. To know that, I need (1) to know when the signal was sent, and (2) I need my clock to be synchronized with the clock on the satellite.
If I have those two things, I can compute the distance to the satellite. And if I can do that with two more satellites at about the same time, I can compute (triangulate) the location of my house.

From https://www.courses.psu.edu/aersp/aersp055_r81/satellites/gps_details.html
The GPS calculation in the receiver uses four equations in the four unknowns x,
y, z, tc, where x, y, z are the receiver’s coordinates, and tc is the time
d1 = c(t_t,1 - t_r,1 + tc) = sqrt((x1-x)^2+(y1-y)^2+sqrt((z1-z)^2)
d2 = c(t_t,2 - t_r,2 + tc) = sqrt((x2-x)^2+(y2-y)^2+sqrt((z2-z)^2)
d3 = c(t_t,3 - t_r,3 + tc) = sqrt((x3-x)^2+(y3-y)^2+sqrt((z3-z)^2)
d4 = c(t_t,4 - t_r,4 + tc) = sqrt((x4-x)^2+(y4-y)^2+sqrt((z4-z)^2)
where
c = speed of light (3 x 10^8 m/s)
t_t,1, t_t,2, t_t,3, t_t,4 = times that GPS satellites 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, transmitted their signals (these times are provided to the
receiver as part of the information that is transmitted).
t_r,1, t_r,2, t_r,3, t_r,4 = times that the signals from GPS satellites 1,
2, 3, and 4, respectively, are received (according to the inaccurate GPS
receiver’s clock)
x1, y1, z1 = coordinates of GPS satellite 1 (these coordinates are provided
to the receiver as part of the information that is transmitted); similar meaning
for x2, y2, z2, etc.
The receiver solves these equations simultaneously to determine x, y, z, and tc.

Of course you did not read the link....You need FOUR SIGNALS FROM FOUR SATELLITES to determine your GPS receiver location.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
From the ground, the only thing you can do is receive SIGNALS from the satellite and measure THOSE SIGNALS. Do you understand this?

There are many types of "SIGNALS." You need to EXPLAIN what kind of "SIGNALS" you are talking about. Why can't you understand that?

It has been told to you many times. The satellite send signals to the ground receivers, using a multiple of the 10.22999999543 MHz reference frequency, derived from the onboard atomic clocks (There are four signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C). Those signals are received at the ground receivers at a multiple of 10.23 MHz.

That's just meaningless gibberish that you have apparently memorized. WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS??????? No one cares what the frequency is or how many different frequencies they use. That has nothing to do with anything. If you think it does, you need to EXPLAIN.

Each GPS satellite continuously broadcasts a navigation message on L1 (C/A and
P/Y) and L2 (P/Y) frequencies at a rate of 50 bits per second (see bitrate).
Each complete message takes 750 seconds (12 1/2 minutes) to complete. The
message structure has a basic format of a 1500-bit-long frame made up of five
subframes, each subframe being 300 bits (6 seconds) long. Subframes 4 and 5 are
subcommutated 25 times each, so that a complete data message requires the
transmission of 25 full frames. Each subframe consists of ten words, each 30
bits long. Thus, with 300 bits in a subframe times 5 subframes in a frame times
25 frames in a message, each message is 37,500 bits long. At a transmission rate
of 50-bit/s, this gives 750 seconds to transmit an entire almanac message (GPS).
Each 30-second frame begins precisely on the minute or half-minute as *indicated
by the atomic clock on each satellite*.
The first subframe of each frame encodes the week number and the time within the
week, as well as the data about the health of the satellite. The second and the
third subframes contain the ephemeris – the precise orbit for the satellite. The
fourth and fifth subframes contain the almanac, which contains coarse orbit and
status information for up to 32 satellites in the constellation as well as data
related to error correction. Thus, to obtain an accurate satellite location from this transmitted message, the receiver must demodulate the message from each
satellite it includes in its solution for 18 to 30 seconds. To collect all
transmitted almanacs, the receiver must demodulate the message for 732 to 750
seconds or 12 1/2 minutes.
All satellites broadcast at the same frequencies, encoding signals using unique
code division multiple access (CDMA) so receivers can distinguish individual
the coarse/acquisition (C/A) code, which is accessible by the general public,
and the precise (P(Y)) code, which is encrypted so that only the U.S. military
and other NATO nations who have been given access to the encryption code can
access it.
The ephemeris is updated every 2 hours and is generally valid for 4 hours, with
provisions for updates every 6 hours or longer in non-nominal conditions. The
almanac is updated typically every 24 hours. Additionally, data for a few weeks
following is uploaded in case of transmission updates that delay data upload.

Again you did not read the provided text, even if you was the one who asked
"WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SIGNALS". No wonder you continue to produce nonsense in your posts.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
Read carefully what you cite above:..."the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that ONCE THEY WERE IN THEIR PROPER ORBIT stations, their clocks WOULD APPEAR to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations".
You see, the comparison is made on the ground and NOT IN THE SATELLITE!!!!!

Did anyone say otherwise? What purpose would be served my making some comparison on the satellite? They KNOW that time ticks at a FASTER rate on the satellite, so the BUILD the satellite clock to run SLOWER on earth. That way, when it is in orbit it will run at the same rate as the clocks on earth.

They KNOW that atomic clocks click in orbit at the very same rate they click on the ground, before launching. That is the reason, those clocks are preadjusted here on the ground, before launching, at 10.22999999543 MHz and, sure enough, they continue to tick at 10.22999999543 MHz while they are orbiting. The signals the GPS sends to the ground follow a path through spacetime, which makes them to be recieved at the ground at 10.23 MHz. This is absolutely not a problem with the clocks, but of how the information gets to the ground.

FALSE!!!!! They KNOW that atomic clocks click (or tick) in orbit at a DIFFERENT rate than identical clocks on the ground before launching. In orbit clocks click (or tick) at a FASTER rate. So, when they BUILD the clocks that will be put in orbit, they BUILD them to run SLOWER on the ground. That way, when they are put in orbit they will run at the same speed as clocks on the ground.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I even provided sources for you. But you just mindlessly repeat what you BELIEVE.
Ed

From https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf section 3.3.1.1
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.
For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in
this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one
centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the
L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III and subsequent
satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to
the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about
the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal
frequency (see Table 3-Vc). The carrier frequencies for the L1
and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within
the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on
the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates --
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset
to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
∆f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23
MHz offset by a ∆f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz
for L1 and L2, respectively.

Again, no comments about what the people, who run the GPS system, say about the relativistic adjustment?

Post by Ed Lake
----- start quote -----
"Conceptually, the receiver measures the TOAs (according to its own clock) of four satellite signals. From the TOAs and the TOTs, the receiver forms four time of flight (TOF) values, which are (given the speed of light) approximately equivalent to receiver-satellite ranges. The receiver then computes its three-dimensional position and clock deviation from the four TOFs.
"In practice the receiver position (in three dimensional Cartesian coordinates with origin at the Earth's center) and the offset of the receiver clock relative to the GPS time are computed simultaneously, using the navigation equations to process the TOFs."
----- end quote ------
Simplified, it says what I said: Knowing the time of arrival (TOA) of a signal from a satellite and the time of flight (TOF), and a code identifying a particular satellite, your receiver can determine how far you are from that satellite. And by measuring the distance to three different satellites, your receiver can triangulate your location on the surface of the earth.

No, it does not say anything like that. Your level of understanding what is written is quite poor. You have to solve for 4 unknowns: the GPS receiver x,y,z locations and t_c, the current time of the GPS receiver. So you need 4 equations to do that and so you need the data from 4 GPS satellites!!!!

Post by Ed Lake
All the mathematical gibberish you've memorized and cited doesn't help. You have to understand the basics. It's not that complicated.

I have not memorized nothing of what I hve written. If you knew how to read, you would recognize the provided links from which the information was taken. It is not that complicated....

Post by Ed Lake
Here's a paper I just found which might be of interest: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/24346/15401
It says that GPS satellites prove that the speed of the observer CAN be added to or subtracted from the speed of light. When the earth is spinning toward the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c+v, where v is the speed of the earth. And when the earth is spinning away from the satellite, the satellite signal arrives at c-v.
Ed

That paper is wrong in multiple ways, the most obvious one is not recognizing the use of the composition of velocities in Special Relativity. See for instance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
u′ = u − v /(1 − uv / c^2)
u = u′ + v /(1 + u′v / c^2)
Notice that if the object were moving at the speed of light in the S system (i.e. u = c), then it would also be moving at the speed of light in the S′ system. Also, if both u and v are small with respect to the speed of light, we will recover the intuitive Galilean transformation of velocities
u′ ≈ u − v
The usual example given is that of a train (frame S′ above) traveling due east with a velocity v with respect to the tracks (frame S). A child inside the train throws a baseball due east with a velocity u′ with respect to the train. In nonrelativistic physics, an observer at rest on the tracks will measure the velocity of the baseball (due east) as u = u′ + v, while in special relativity this is no longer true; instead the velocity of the baseball (due east) is given by the second equation: u = (u′ + v)/(1 + u′v/c2). Again, there is nothing special about the x or east directions. This formalism applies to any direction by considering parallel and perpendicular components of motion to the direction of relative velocity v.

Wikipedia is WRONG. At the top of the page it gives Einstein's Second Postulate the INCORRECT way:

"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."

In the "POSTULATES" section it give Einstein's Second Postulate the CORRECT way:

"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

Note that the second version says nothing about ALL OBSERVERS. It is only about what the EMITTER or light SOURCE sees. And that is what Einstein's Second Postulate says in his 1905 paper:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY."

I can see that there is no getting through to you on this. Your mind seems closed. And you're just wasting my time.

As I see it, the GPS satellite paper can be used to show your beliefs are nonsense. GPS satellites do NOT tell you where you ARE. They tell you where you WERE. At 8:00:01 a.m. they tell you where you WERE at 8:00:00 a.m. They cannot tell you were you ARE, because that would require predicting your movements while the signals are going from the satellites to your GPS system.

This is something that really needs an ILLUSTRATION to explain. I'm going to have to sit down and work on that. It's really fascinating, and it shows how STUPID it is to believe that ALL OBSERVERS measure the same speed of light regardless of the light source. If that were true, the GPS system could not work.

Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
read (which appears doubtfully) the following:

"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:

1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."

After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?

Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?
Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I'm working on an analysis of the GPS system for my web site. That's why it took me awhile to reply.

Note that what #2 says is that it doesn't matter if the emitter is moving or stationary, it will still emit light at c. It says NOTHING about what an outside observer might see or measure.

It appears you are misinterpreting this phrase: "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways. See my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

What the phrase means is that light travels at c regardless of the movement of the EMITTER. But it could also mean that light WE create is MEASURED to travel at c in your lab on Earth and also in my lab on a space ship going 99.5% of the speed of light away from the earth.

But, of course, that does NOT mean that if I measure the speed of light coming from your lab on earth as it arrives at my space ship, that it will arrive at c. That would be ABSURD. It will arrive at c-v where v is my speed away from the earth. The light is ACTUALLY traveling at c, of course, but that is not how I would MEASURE it while I am moving. If it arrived at c, that would mean I was STATIONARY relative to you. And, I'm not. I'm moving at 99.5% of the speed of light AWAY from you.

It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.

Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?
Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I'm working on an analysis of the GPS system for my web site. That's why it took me awhile to reply.
Note that what #2 says is that it doesn't matter if the emitter is moving or stationary, it will still emit light at c. It says NOTHING about what an outside observer might see or measure.
It appears you are misinterpreting this phrase: "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."
You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways. See my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
What the phrase means is that light travels at c regardless of the movement of the EMITTER. But it could also mean that light WE create is MEASURED to travel at c in your lab on Earth and also in my lab on a space ship going 99.5% of the speed of light away from the earth.
But, of course, that does NOT mean that if I measure the speed of light coming from your lab on earth as it arrives at my space ship, that it will arrive at c. That would be ABSURD. It will arrive at c-v where v is my speed away from the earth. The light is ACTUALLY traveling at c, of course, but that is not how I would MEASURE it while I am moving. If it arrived at c, that would mean I was STATIONARY relative to you. And, I'm not. I'm moving at 99.5% of the speed of light AWAY from you.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.
Ed

Well, Einstein text, in English, is quite clear:

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body.

You are at your home in a “stationary system of co-ordinates", with some
measurement equipment, and detect an incoming ray of light: that light
will move at speed c, whether the ray was emitted by a stationary or by
a moving body.

It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?
Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I'm working on an analysis of the GPS system for my web site. That's why it took me awhile to reply.
Note that what #2 says is that it doesn't matter if the emitter is moving or stationary, it will still emit light at c. It says NOTHING about what an outside observer might see or measure.
It appears you are misinterpreting this phrase: "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."
You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways. See my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
What the phrase means is that light travels at c regardless of the movement of the EMITTER. But it could also mean that light WE create is MEASURED to travel at c in your lab on Earth and also in my lab on a space ship going 99.5% of the speed of light away from the earth.
But, of course, that does NOT mean that if I measure the speed of light coming from your lab on earth as it arrives at my space ship, that it will arrive at c. That would be ABSURD. It will arrive at c-v where v is my speed away from the earth. The light is ACTUALLY traveling at c, of course, but that is not how I would MEASURE it while I am moving. If it arrived at c, that would mean I was STATIONARY relative to you. And, I'm not. I'm moving at 99.5% of the speed of light AWAY from you.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.
Ed

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body.
You are at your home in a “stationary system of co-ordinates", with some
measurement equipment, and detect an incoming ray of light: that light
will move at speed c, whether the ray was emitted by a stationary or by
a moving body.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.

Your problem is that you cannot EXPLAIN anything because you evidently do not UNDERSTAND anything. All you can do is provide quotes and formulae and DECLARE that they support your views. You cannot explain HOW they support your views.

I EXPLAIN HOW they do NOT support your views, and you just provide more quotes and formulae and DECLARE they support your views.

If you cannot EXPLAIN your views, you clearly do not understand anything. As Einstein supposedly said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?
Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I'm working on an analysis of the GPS system for my web site. That's why it took me awhile to reply.
Note that what #2 says is that it doesn't matter if the emitter is moving or stationary, it will still emit light at c. It says NOTHING about what an outside observer might see or measure.
It appears you are misinterpreting this phrase: "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."
You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways. See my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
What the phrase means is that light travels at c regardless of the movement of the EMITTER. But it could also mean that light WE create is MEASURED to travel at c in your lab on Earth and also in my lab on a space ship going 99.5% of the speed of light away from the earth.
But, of course, that does NOT mean that if I measure the speed of light coming from your lab on earth as it arrives at my space ship, that it will arrive at c. That would be ABSURD. It will arrive at c-v where v is my speed away from the earth. The light is ACTUALLY traveling at c, of course, but that is not how I would MEASURE it while I am moving. If it arrived at c, that would mean I was STATIONARY relative to you. And, I'm not. I'm moving at 99.5% of the speed of light AWAY from you.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.
Ed

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body.
You are at your home in a “stationary system of co-ordinates", with some
measurement equipment, and detect an incoming ray of light: that light
will move at speed c, whether the ray was emitted by a stationary or by
a moving body.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.

Your problem is that you cannot EXPLAIN anything because you evidently do not UNDERSTAND anything. All you can do is provide quotes and formulae and DECLARE that they support your views. You cannot explain HOW they support your views.

It appears that your totally blind and deaf to explanations.

You first assert above, without any proof that:

"You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways."

I have explained to you that the term “stationary system of co-ordinates" used
in Einstein paper and in SR refers to an inertial frame of reference. What is it
an inertial frame of reference? It is basically a system of coordinates where
an observer (a set of instruments) is at rest (ie, not moving). So you, seated
at your sofa, can define an inertial frame of reference (or “stationary system
of co-ordinates") and perform experiments with the appropiate instrumentation.

I can also, at my office, define an inertial frame of reference, where I have
some benches with optical lasers and instruments to measure the speed of light.

So, a “stationary system of co-ordinates" is a very general way of describing
typical laboratory locations, and therefore it implies the number of different
“stationary system of co-ordinates" is infinity.

So postulate 2) implies quite the same, ie, there are zillions of different
“stationary system of co-ordinates" and for all of them the light will move at
speed c, whether the ray was emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

That is what Einstein wrote and what after over 110 years, nobody has been able
to prove it wrong.

Deal with it...

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?
Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I'm working on an analysis of the GPS system for my web site. That's why it took me awhile to reply.
Note that what #2 says is that it doesn't matter if the emitter is moving or stationary, it will still emit light at c. It says NOTHING about what an outside observer might see or measure.
It appears you are misinterpreting this phrase: "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."
You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways. See my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
What the phrase means is that light travels at c regardless of the movement of the EMITTER. But it could also mean that light WE create is MEASURED to travel at c in your lab on Earth and also in my lab on a space ship going 99.5% of the speed of light away from the earth.
But, of course, that does NOT mean that if I measure the speed of light coming from your lab on earth as it arrives at my space ship, that it will arrive at c. That would be ABSURD. It will arrive at c-v where v is my speed away from the earth. The light is ACTUALLY traveling at c, of course, but that is not how I would MEASURE it while I am moving. If it arrived at c, that would mean I was STATIONARY relative to you. And, I'm not. I'm moving at 99.5% of the speed of light AWAY from you.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.
Ed

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body.
You are at your home in a “stationary system of co-ordinates", with some
measurement equipment, and detect an incoming ray of light: that light
will move at speed c, whether the ray was emitted by a stationary or by
a moving body.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.

Your problem is that you cannot EXPLAIN anything because you evidently do not UNDERSTAND anything. All you can do is provide quotes and formulae and DECLARE that they support your views. You cannot explain HOW they support your views.

It appears that your totally blind and deaf to explanations.
"You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways."
I have explained to you that the term “stationary system of co-ordinates" used
in Einstein paper and in SR refers to an inertial frame of reference. What is it
an inertial frame of reference? It is basically a system of coordinates where
an observer (a set of instruments) is at rest (ie, not moving). So you, seated
at your sofa, can define an inertial frame of reference (or “stationary system
of co-ordinates") and perform experiments with the appropiate instrumentation.
I can also, at my office, define an inertial frame of reference, where I have
some benches with optical lasers and instruments to measure the speed of light.
So, a “stationary system of co-ordinates" is a very general way of describing
typical laboratory locations, and therefore it implies the number of different
“stationary system of co-ordinates" is infinity.
So postulate 2) implies quite the same, ie, there are zillions of different
“stationary system of co-ordinates" and for all of them the light will move at
speed c, whether the ray was emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
That is what Einstein wrote and what after over 110 years, nobody has been able
to prove it wrong.
Deal with it...

There's nothing to prove wrong. I fully agree with what you just wrote.

So, the question is: How are you translating that in a different way than I am? Since you are incapable of explaining anything, I will explain my view:

All you are saying is that in many different frames of reference, the speed of light will be measured to be c. That's basically Einstein's FIRST Postulate.

But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the output of one frame of reference and compare it to the output of another frame of reference.

That is where RELATIVITY comes in. If the length of a second is LONGER in your frame of reference versus mine, we will BOTH measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because your SECOND is longer than mine, the measurements are in reality NOT EQUAL.

Seconds are LONGER for an object that is moving. Seconds are LONGER when you are closer to a gravitational mass.

So, everyone is measuring the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because their SECONDS are of different lengths, the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference.

Understand?

Ed

[Python]

Post by Ed Lake
But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the
output of one frame of reference and compare it to the output
of another frame of reference.

The "output of a frame of reference"??? What the Hell is this
supposed to mean?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Yay!!!!!
Ed Donkey is Back!!!

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Python

Post by Ed Lake
But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the
output of one frame of reference and compare it to the output
of another frame of reference.

The "output of a frame of reference"??? What the Hell is this
supposed to mean?

Never ask an idiot what he means.
You won't know what's hitting you.

Dirk Vdm

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake
There's nothing to prove wrong. I fully agree with what you just wrote.
All you are saying is that in many different frames of reference, the speed of light will be measured to be c. That's basically Einstein's FIRST Postulate.

And it appears you are agreeing with Einstein on this postulate. So far so
good.

Post by Ed Lake
But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the output of one frame of reference and compare it to the output of another frame of reference.

This sentence is nonsense. What is for you the "output of one frame of
reference"?

Post by Ed Lake
That is where RELATIVITY comes in. If the length of a second is LONGER in your frame of reference versus mine, we will BOTH measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because your SECOND is longer than mine, the measurements are in reality NOT EQUAL.

But you forget that there is not only time dilation but also length contraction
in SR.

That means that if x/t=c in one frame of reference, x'/t'=c in a second frame of
reference.

See for example the section Physical Implications on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation, which says:

"A critical requirement of the Lorentz transformations is the invariance of the
speed of light, a fact used in their derivation, and contained in the
transformations themselves. If in F the equation for a pulse of light along the
x direction is x = ct, then in F′ the Lorentz transformations give x′ = ct′, and
vice versa, for any −c < v < c."

Post by Ed Lake
Seconds are LONGER for an object that is moving. Seconds are LONGER when you are closer to a gravitational mass.
So, everyone is measuring the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because their SECONDS are of different lengths, the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference.

This is clearly wrong, as it was shown to you above.

Post by Ed Lake
Understand?
Ed

Yes, we understand that you are totally lost in this subject.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
There's nothing to prove wrong. I fully agree with what you just wrote.
All you are saying is that in many different frames of reference, the speed of light will be measured to be c. That's basically Einstein's FIRST Postulate.

And it appears you are agreeing with Einstein on this postulate. So far so
good.

Post by Ed Lake
But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the output of one frame of reference and compare it to the output of another frame of reference.

This sentence is nonsense. What is for you the "output of one frame of
reference"?

Everything you in YOUR frame of reference can see and measure in MY frame of reference is "output" from MY frame of reference It is "input" to you. And, vice versa, of course. Whatever I in my frame of reference can see in your frame of reference is output from YOUR frame of reference.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
That is where RELATIVITY comes in. If the length of a second is LONGER in your frame of reference versus mine, we will BOTH measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because your SECOND is longer than mine, the measurements are in reality NOT EQUAL.

But you forget that there is not only time dilation but also length contraction
in SR.

I haven't forgotten. I consider "length contraction" to be a mistake by Einstein. He had no other way to explain Time Dilation. In 1905 they knew nothing about the workings of particles. It seems they considered them to be "corpuscles" or little bits of "stuff" of some kind. No one has ever performed an experiment which proves the reality of "length contraction." What the experiments appear to show, as far as I can tell, is that Time is Particle Spin. I've written a paper on that. It seems to fit with ALL experiments.

Post by Paparios
That means that if x/t=c in one frame of reference, x'/t'=c in a second frame of
reference.
"A critical requirement of the Lorentz transformations is the invariance of the
speed of light, a fact used in their derivation, and contained in the
transformations themselves. If in F the equation for a pulse of light along the
x direction is x = ct, then in F′ the Lorentz transformations give x′ = ct′, and
vice versa, for any −c < v < c."

But it's already been explained to you that that is the MATHEMATICIAN'S view of Relativity. Einstein argued with mathematicians for 50 years, complaining that they had distorted his theories. Einstein explains in his books that an outside observer will measure the speed of light to arrive at c+v or c-v, depending on his own motion.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Seconds are LONGER for an object that is moving. Seconds are LONGER when you are closer to a gravitational mass.
So, everyone is measuring the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because their SECONDS are of different lengths, the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference.

This is clearly wrong, as it was shown to you above.

I understand that is your OPINION and the OPINION of a lot of mathematicians. But Einstein's theory says EXACTLY what I said (except for the particle spin part).

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Understand?
Ed

Yes, we understand that you are totally lost in this subject.

I understand that you have memorized what you learned in some physics class, and I consider what you were taught in that class to be CRAP. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. That's what my papers are about.

Understand?

Ed

[Paparios]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Understand?
Ed

Yes, we understand that you are totally lost in this subject.

I understand that you have memorized what you learned in some physics class, and I consider what you were taught in that class to be CRAP. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. That's what my papers are about.
Understand?
Ed

Yes, I understand your lack of education in physics. It is amazing how people
like you can go to a hospital and trust your doctors who, by the way, learned
their craft in an university class. However, you do not trust physicists who
followed the same process.

Modern physics has been enormously successful in finding models who try to
explain how Nature works, and in the way those findings have enabled most of
our current technology.

So yes, you are absolutely wrong in consider what we learned in our physics class was crap.

May be your position can be easily explained by considering you have never
taken a physics class and so you remain to be a complete ignorant of the field.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Understand?
Ed

Yes, we understand that you are totally lost in this subject.

I understand that you have memorized what you learned in some physics class, and I consider what you were taught in that class to be CRAP. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. That's what my papers are about.
Understand?
Ed

Yes, I understand your lack of education in physics. It is amazing how people
like you can go to a hospital and trust your doctors who, by the way, learned
their craft in an university class. However, you do not trust physicists who
followed the same process.
Modern physics has been enormously successful in finding models who try to
explain how Nature works, and in the way those findings have enabled most of
our current technology.
So yes, you are absolutely wrong in consider what we learned in our physics class was crap.
May be your position can be easily explained by considering you have never
taken a physics class and so you remain to be a complete ignorant of the field.

You fail to understand that all physics classes DO NOT TEACH THE SAME THING. Most appear to teach what you believe, but SOME teach Einstein's theories and what I consider to be valid.

I'm trying to find out how many teach the CORRECT theory and how many teach the STUPID mathematicians' version.

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Donkey Farted
<Snip Farts>

Loading Image...

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Ed Lake

El viernes, 9 de febrero de 2018, 14:57:14 (UTC-3), Ed Lake

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:36:16 AM UTC-6, Paparios
There's nothing to prove wrong. I fully agree with what you just wrote.
So, the question is: How are you translating that in a different
way than I am? Since you are incapable of explaining anything, I
All you are saying is that in many different frames of reference,
the speed of light will be measured to be c. That's basically
Einstein's FIRST Postulate.

And it appears you are agreeing with Einstein on this postulate. So
far so good.

But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the output
of one frame of reference and compare it to the output of another
frame of reference.

This sentence is nonsense. What is for you the "output of one frame
of reference"?

Everything you in YOUR frame of reference can see and measure in MY
frame of reference is "output" from MY frame of reference It is
"input" to you. And, vice versa, of course. Whatever I in my frame
of reference can see in your frame of reference is output from YOUR
frame of reference.

Loading Image...

Post by Ed Lake

That is where RELATIVITY comes in. If the length of a second is
LONGER in your frame of reference versus mine, we will BOTH
measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
but because your SECOND is longer than mine, the measurements are
in reality NOT EQUAL.

But you forget that there is not only time dilation but also length
contraction in SR.

I haven't forgotten. I consider "length contraction" to be a mistake
by Einstein. He had no other way to explain Time Dilation. In 1905
they knew nothing about the workings of particles. It seems they
considered them to be "corpuscles" or little bits of "stuff" of some
kind. No one has ever performed an experiment which proves the
reality of "length contraction." What the experiments appear to
show, as far as I can tell, is that Time is Particle Spin. I've
written a paper on that. It seems to fit with ALL experiments.

Loading Image...

Post by Ed Lake

That means that if x/t=c in one frame of reference, x'/t'=c in a
second frame of reference.
See for example the section Physical Implications on
"A critical requirement of the Lorentz transformations is the
invariance of the speed of light, a fact used in their derivation,
and contained in the transformations themselves. If in F the
equation for a pulse of light along the x direction is x = ct, then
in F′ the Lorentz transformations give x′ = ct′, and vice versa,
for any −c < v < c."

But it's already been explained to you that that is the
MATHEMATICIAN'S view of Relativity. Einstein argued with
mathematicians for 50 years, complaining that they had distorted his
theories. Einstein explains in his books that an outside observer
will measure the speed of light to arrive at c+v or c-v, depending on
his own motion.

Loading Image...

Post by Ed Lake

Seconds are LONGER for an object that is moving. Seconds are
LONGER when you are closer to a gravitational mass.
So, everyone is measuring the speed of light to be 299,792,458
meters PER SECOND, but because their SECONDS are of different
lengths, the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT in the
different frames of reference.

This is clearly wrong, as it was shown to you above.

I understand that is your OPINION and the OPINION of a lot of
mathematicians. But Einstein's theory says EXACTLY what I said
(except for the particle spin part).

Loading Image...

Post by Ed Lake

Understand?
Ed

Yes, we understand that you are totally lost in this subject.

I understand that you have memorized what you learned in some physics
class, and I consider what you were taught in that class to be CRAP.
That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. That's what my
papers are about.
Understand?

Loading Image...

Dirk Vdm

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
There's nothing to prove wrong. I fully agree with what you just wrote.
So, the question is: How are you translating that in a different way
All you are saying is that in many different frames of reference, the
speed of light will be measured to be c. That's basically Einstein's FIRST Postulate.

And it appears you are agreeing with Einstein on this postulate. So far so
good.

Post by Ed Lake
But, nothing is said about what happens if you measure the output of
one frame of reference and compare it to the output of another frame of reference.

This sentence is nonsense. What is for you the "output of one frame of
reference"?

Everything you in YOUR frame of reference can see and measure in MY frame
of reference is "output" from MY frame of reference It is "input" to
you. And, vice versa, of course. Whatever I in my frame of reference
can see in your frame of reference is output from YOUR frame of reference.

Nice invention. You came up with that yourself? Any bearing on what frames
of reference really means?

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
That is where RELATIVITY comes in. If the length of a second is LONGER
in your frame of reference versus mine, we will BOTH measure the speed
of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because your SECOND
is longer than mine, the measurements are in reality NOT EQUAL.

But you forget that there is not only time dilation but also length contraction
in SR.

I haven't forgotten. I consider "length contraction" to be a mistake by
Einstein. He had no other way to explain Time Dilation. In 1905 they
knew nothing about the workings of particles. It seems they considered
them to be "corpuscles" or little bits of "stuff" of some kind. No one
has ever performed an experiment which proves the reality of "length
contraction." What the experiments appear to show, as far as I can tell,
is that Time is Particle Spin. I've written a paper on that. It seems to
fit with ALL experiments.

Post by Paparios
That means that if x/t=c in one frame of reference, x'/t'=c in a second frame of
reference.
See for example the section Physical Implications on
"A critical requirement of the Lorentz transformations is the invariance of the
speed of light, a fact used in their derivation, and contained in the
transformations themselves. If in F the equation for a pulse of light along the
x direction is x = ct, then in F′ the Lorentz transformations give x′ = ct′, and
vice versa, for any −c < v < c."

But it's already been explained to you that that is the MATHEMATICIAN'S
view of Relativity. Einstein argued with mathematicians for 50 years,
complaining that they had distorted his theories. Einstein explains in
his books that an outside observer will measure the speed of light to
arrive at c+v or c-v, depending on his own motion.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Seconds are LONGER for an object that is moving. Seconds are LONGER
when you are closer to a gravitational mass.
So, everyone is measuring the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters
PER SECOND, but because their SECONDS are of different lengths, the
speed of light is actually DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference.

This is clearly wrong, as it was shown to you above.

I understand that is your OPINION and the OPINION of a lot of
mathematicians. But Einstein's theory says EXACTLY what I said (except
for the particle spin part).

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Understand?
Ed

Yes, we understand that you are totally lost in this subject.

I understand that you have memorized what you learned in some physics
class, and I consider what you were taught in that class to be CRAP.
That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. That's what my papers are about.
Understand?
Ed

[Python]

Post by Ed Lake
Everything you in YOUR frame of reference can see and measure in MY frame
of reference is "output" from MY frame of reference It is "input" to you.
And, vice versa, of course. Whatever I in my frame of reference can see
in your frame of reference is output from YOUR frame of reference.

Well... so "output of a frame of reference" is meaningless (I had no
doubt about that).

Hint for Ed Lake: everything is in all frames of reference. If you and
I meet each other walking by a street you are in my frame (moving)
while I'm at rest, and vice versa.

This is the whole point of the concept of frame of reference. As
long as you won't understand what it means, you'll be miserable,
as well on Special and General Relativity as on classical
physics.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."

You are so full of your closeminded view of a subject you barely know and for
sure have not read or study. Look section 2 of Einstein paper, where if you can
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
After reading the words of Einstein, are you sure Wikipedia is wrong?
Source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

I'm working on an analysis of the GPS system for my web site. That's why it took me awhile to reply.
Note that what #2 says is that it doesn't matter if the emitter is moving or stationary, it will still emit light at c. It says NOTHING about what an outside observer might see or measure.
It appears you are misinterpreting this phrase: "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."
You are somehow misinterpreting that to mean that ALL OBSERVERS see and measure light to travel at c. That is just plain NUTS. It is STUPID. It is illogical and has been disproved many times and many ways. See my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
What the phrase means is that light travels at c regardless of the movement of the EMITTER. But it could also mean that light WE create is MEASURED to travel at c in your lab on Earth and also in my lab on a space ship going 99.5% of the speed of light away from the earth.
But, of course, that does NOT mean that if I measure the speed of light coming from your lab on earth as it arrives at my space ship, that it will arrive at c. That would be ABSURD. It will arrive at c-v where v is my speed away from the earth. The light is ACTUALLY traveling at c, of course, but that is not how I would MEASURE it while I am moving. If it arrived at c, that would mean I was STATIONARY relative to you. And, I'm not. I'm moving at 99.5% of the speed of light AWAY from you.
It's really not that complicated. You just have to open your mind to reality.
Ed

Here's what I just put on my web site:

---- start quote -----

I awoke this morning thinking about GPS satellites and how they must disprove the mathematicians "All Observers" version of Einstein's Second Postulate. But, I think I'm going to have to create some kind of illustration to help explain it. The illustration would be something like this:

----------OA--------------------OB----------->

-----------------X-----Y-----Z--------------->

OA and OB are two orbiting GPS satellites moving west to east around the Earth. X is where I am located on Earth at 8 a.m., and I am also moving west to east as the Earth spins on its axis, but at a different velocity than the velocity of the two satellites. Y is where I am at 8:00:01 a.m. when I receive the 8 a.m. signal from the OB satellite. I receive it first, because it arrives at c+v where v is my speed toward the OB satellite (the emitter). Z is where I am at 8:00:02 a.m. when I receive the signal from the OA satellite. It arrives later than the OB signal because I am traveling away from the OA satellite and the light arrives at c-v, where v is my speed away from the OA satellite.

So, at 8:00:03 a.m., my GPS system tells me where I was as 8:00:00 a.m. (In reality, it is more like 8:00:00.000003 a.m. and 8:00:00.000000 a.m.) The system cannot tell me where I AM, since that would require some prediction of where I will be a millionth of a second in the future when the signal arrives.

The system can tell me where I WAS at 8:00:00 a.m. because the clocks on the two satellites are synchronized with my clock. 8:00:00 a.m. is the same on all three clocks. (Actually, you need 3 or 4 satellites to make things work, but that would complicate the illustration and explanation unnecessarily.) And, of course it is known that the signals from the satellites to my GPS system travel at c, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. If you know the speed of the signal and the length of time the signal traveled, you can determine the distance traveled. And knowing the distance traveled allows the system to calculate/triangulate where I was on the surface of the Earth at 8:00:00 a.m.

If, however, the mathematicians were right, and if light travels at the same speed for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of their movement relative to the source of the light signals, then how could the GPS system work? Both signals would have to arrive when I am at position Y, even though the signal from OA would have had to travel a greater distance in the same amount of time. The only way that would work is if light traveled instantaneously (at infinite speed). And if that were true, you couldn't measure distances by how fast light gets from point to point.

I can probably find better ways to explain this, but I'm going to have to think about it a bit.

Ed

[JanPB]

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY."
I can see that there is no getting through to you on this. Your mind seems closed. And you're just wasting my time.

Wikipedia simply presents the theory and its postulates in its modern dressing.
The intent is not to be _historically_ accurate towards Einstein's 1905 paper
but to be _scientifically_ accurate. The point is that both the Einstein paper
and the current formulations of it are equivalent.

But it's nevertheless true that the modern approach IS vastly inferior
_pedagogically_ speaking. Many students get confused and lost in it
immediately since the two postulates in the modern formulation appear
completely outlandish: "however would anyone even THINK and come up with
such an idea?" The second postulate appears COMPLETELY whimsical.

So I'm not a big fan of the standard textbook presentations of SR as they
form a perfect mental trap: on the one hand they require a scientific maturity
beyond that of a typical undergraduate student, and on the other hand
the theory just HAPPENS to require VERY little in terms of its mathematical
prerequisites, so it appears to be "easy to understand" (and thus easy
to poke imagined "holes" through it - this newsgroup is the prime example
of this).

John Bell was troubled by it, he wrote a paper on how to teach special
relativity. IMHO SR should be taught after a solid electrodynamics course,
and even then using Einstein's original 1905 approach (with a few
modifications to avoid some unnecessary awkwardness), not the modern
version of the postulates. Those can be stated AFTERWARDS, as a theorem,
with their full equivalence to the 1905 originals PROVEN rigorously.

--
Jan

[Ed Lake]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY."
I can see that there is no getting through to you on this. Your mind seems closed. And you're just wasting my time.

Wikipedia simply presents the theory and its postulates in its modern dressing.
The intent is not to be _historically_ accurate towards Einstein's 1905 paper
but to be _scientifically_ accurate. The point is that both the Einstein paper
and the current formulations of it are equivalent.
But it's nevertheless true that the modern approach IS vastly inferior
_pedagogically_ speaking. Many students get confused and lost in it
immediately since the two postulates in the modern formulation appear
completely outlandish: "however would anyone even THINK and come up with
such an idea?" The second postulate appears COMPLETELY whimsical.
So I'm not a big fan of the standard textbook presentations of SR as they
form a perfect mental trap: on the one hand they require a scientific maturity
beyond that of a typical undergraduate student, and on the other hand
the theory just HAPPENS to require VERY little in terms of its mathematical
prerequisites, so it appears to be "easy to understand" (and thus easy
to poke imagined "holes" through it - this newsgroup is the prime example
of this).
John Bell was troubled by it, he wrote a paper on how to teach special
relativity. IMHO SR should be taught after a solid electrodynamics course,
and even then using Einstein's original 1905 approach (with a few
modifications to avoid some unnecessary awkwardness), not the modern
version of the postulates. Those can be stated AFTERWARDS, as a theorem,
with their full equivalence to the 1905 originals PROVEN rigorously.
--
Jan

I've been doing a survey of college text books to see what they teach. The vast majority teach the "mathematicians' all observers theory" instead of "Einstein's emitter only" theory. But there are exceptions.

The 9th and 10th editions of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl Walker have Einstein's version. But the 8th edition had the mathematicians' version.

I just found a bunch of papers by Stephan Gift that argue against the mathematicians version, but Gift blames the theory he learned in school and not the mathematicians for the errors.

I'm hunting for others which use Einstein's theory. I've got about 30 text books, over 100 physics books and several hundred articles that I'm trying to sort through and organize. The problem is that it seems like every day I find a few more papers and books that I need to add to the collection. In my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate I provide examples of "crap" from a bunch of college texts: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

This morning I found a published paper that considers Einstein's theory to be nothing but a government conspiracy to make the public believe nonsense.

Ed

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Ed Lake
This morning I found a published paper that considers Einstein's
theory to be nothing but a government conspiracy to make the public
believe nonsense.

Loading Image...

Dirk Vdm

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

4:50 PMDirk Van de moortel

Post by Ed Lake
This morning I found a published paper that considers Einstein's
theory to be nothing but a government conspiracy to make the public
believe nonsense.

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-lUrtfN25O64/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/9QynEgPm7Ec/s900-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg

Dirk Vdm

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/719/509/0ad.png

[JanPB]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY."
I can see that there is no getting through to you on this. Your mind seems closed. And you're just wasting my time.

Wikipedia simply presents the theory and its postulates in its modern dressing.
The intent is not to be _historically_ accurate towards Einstein's 1905 paper
but to be _scientifically_ accurate. The point is that both the Einstein paper
and the current formulations of it are equivalent.
But it's nevertheless true that the modern approach IS vastly inferior
_pedagogically_ speaking. Many students get confused and lost in it
immediately since the two postulates in the modern formulation appear
completely outlandish: "however would anyone even THINK and come up with
such an idea?" The second postulate appears COMPLETELY whimsical.
So I'm not a big fan of the standard textbook presentations of SR as they
form a perfect mental trap: on the one hand they require a scientific maturity
beyond that of a typical undergraduate student, and on the other hand
the theory just HAPPENS to require VERY little in terms of its mathematical
prerequisites, so it appears to be "easy to understand" (and thus easy
to poke imagined "holes" through it - this newsgroup is the prime example
of this).
John Bell was troubled by it, he wrote a paper on how to teach special
relativity. IMHO SR should be taught after a solid electrodynamics course,
and even then using Einstein's original 1905 approach (with a few
modifications to avoid some unnecessary awkwardness), not the modern
version of the postulates. Those can be stated AFTERWARDS, as a theorem,
with their full equivalence to the 1905 originals PROVEN rigorously.
--
Jan

I've been doing a survey of college text books to see what they teach. The vast majority teach the "mathematicians' all observers theory" instead of "Einstein's emitter only" theory. But there are exceptions.

They are the same theory. Only the presentation is different: certain
axioms and concepts are rearranged, etc. Minkowski's spacetime is
introduced ASAP rather than at the very end, etc. etc.

Post by Ed Lake
The 9th and 10th editions of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl Walker have Einstein's version. But the 8th edition had the mathematicians' version.

They are the same. Nobody understanding this actually cares about
this distinction which is for a professional merely of historical
interest. For the student there is a distinct paedagogical advantage
to the Einstein's original approach as I mentioned earlier.

Otherwise, there is no smoking gun there.

Post by Ed Lake
I just found a bunch of papers by Stephan Gift that argue against the mathematicians version, but Gift blames the theory he learned in school and not the mathematicians for the errors.

Neither approach has any "errors". They are equivalent but different,
and the modern one is clean, polished, and (to the uninitiated)
whimsical to the point of being incomprehensible.

Post by Ed Lake
I'm hunting for others which use Einstein's theory.

Well, they all use "Einstein's theory" because as I said they define
the same theory. But it's true that practically none of the textbooks
used nowadays introduce SR in an organic manner. Even best ones, like
Griffiths' or Jackson's "Electrodynamics" develop the E&M part in
a more or less "justifiable" fashion, but as soon as the relativity
chapter comes up, it's totally switching gears: suddenly the exposition
changes to very clean, theoretical, axiomatic method, it's almost as if
one was reading a different book. I'm not sure why that is as the
way relativity developed is fascinating from the teacher's point of
view. Some kind of a teaching fad, I don't know.

Post by Ed Lake
I've got about 30 text books, over 100 physics books and several hundred articles that I'm trying to sort through and organize. The problem is that it seems like every day I find a few more papers and books that I need to add to the collection. In my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate I provide examples of "crap" from a bunch of college texts: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

I'll take a look later today but from what you've written earlier it
looks to me like you've fallen into one of the standard traps that
the lack of certain education sets for you: paying WAY too much
attention to what those things that _you don't know yet are
irrelevancies_.

Post by Ed Lake
This morning I found a published paper that considers Einstein's theory to be nothing but a government conspiracy to make the public believe nonsense.

Yeah, whatever. I have a bridge to sell too.

--
Jan

[Ed Lake]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake
"The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of the motion of the light source."
"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY" (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light SOURCE."
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY."
I can see that there is no getting through to you on this. Your mind seems closed. And you're just wasting my time.

Wikipedia simply presents the theory and its postulates in its modern dressing.
The intent is not to be _historically_ accurate towards Einstein's 1905 paper
but to be _scientifically_ accurate. The point is that both the Einstein paper
and the current formulations of it are equivalent.
But it's nevertheless true that the modern approach IS vastly inferior
_pedagogically_ speaking. Many students get confused and lost in it
immediately since the two postulates in the modern formulation appear
completely outlandish: "however would anyone even THINK and come up with
such an idea?" The second postulate appears COMPLETELY whimsical.
So I'm not a big fan of the standard textbook presentations of SR as they
form a perfect mental trap: on the one hand they require a scientific maturity
beyond that of a typical undergraduate student, and on the other hand
the theory just HAPPENS to require VERY little in terms of its mathematical
prerequisites, so it appears to be "easy to understand" (and thus easy
to poke imagined "holes" through it - this newsgroup is the prime example
of this).
John Bell was troubled by it, he wrote a paper on how to teach special
relativity. IMHO SR should be taught after a solid electrodynamics course,
and even then using Einstein's original 1905 approach (with a few
modifications to avoid some unnecessary awkwardness), not the modern
version of the postulates. Those can be stated AFTERWARDS, as a theorem,
with their full equivalence to the 1905 originals PROVEN rigorously.
--
Jan

What bothers me most about the college texts that teach the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is that they ALL state that the authors realize that the theory is "contrary to common sense" but it should be believed anyway.

What that does is create a situation where if a student says the theory doesn't make any sense, he's told that he has to believe it anyway or he'll fail the class. No discussions allowed.

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ahhhh Fuck!
Ed Donkey is having another Brain Fart Attack

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ahhhh Fuck!
Ed Donkey is having another Brain Fart Attack

Loading Image...

[JanPB]

Post by Ed Lake
What bothers me most about the college texts that teach the "mathematicians' all observers theory"

Again, they are neither "mathematicians'"(*) nor a different theory.

(*)I'm not commenting further on your very strange usage of the word
"mathematicians" as a pejorative term. My only remark is that it's
telling.

Post by Ed Lake
is that they ALL state that the authors realize that the theory is "contrary to common sense" but it should be believed anyway.

Well, it runs against mundane everyday experience, yes.

Post by Ed Lake
What that does is create a situation where if a student says the theory doesn't make any sense, he's told that he has to believe it anyway or he'll fail the class. No discussions allowed.

This I fully agree with(**). IMHO the current way of teaching SR is
simply no good. But it's not the fault of the theory, it's just
a bad teaching fashion.

(**)except for "no discussions allowed". Of course it's allowed,
it's just that the time constraints of real life prevent that
sort of unending debate in classrooms that we enjoy here :-)

--
Jan

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by JanPB
So I'm not a big fan of the standard textbook presentations of SR as they
form a perfect mental trap: on the one hand they require a scientific maturity
beyond that of a typical undergraduate student, and on the other hand
the theory just HAPPENS to require VERY little in terms of its mathematical
prerequisites, so it appears to be "easy to understand" (and thus easy
to poke imagined "holes" through it - this newsgroup is the prime example
of this).

And so many morons, icluding you, have been trapped.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

JanPB wrote

So I'm not a big fan of the standard textbook presentations of SR as they
form a perfect mental trap: on the one hand they require a scientific maturity
beyond that of a typical undergraduate student, and on the other hand
the theory just HAPPENS to require VERY little in terms of its mathematical
prerequisites, so it appears to be "easy to understand" (and thus easy
to poke imagined "holes" through it - this newsgroup is the prime example
of this).

Yeah ... good idea. ..... just use Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed

(1-(Speed relative to medium)^2/(Bulk Modulus Speed of Medium)^2)

[JanPB]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

The ordering and naming of some postulates is irrelevant (it may be of
interest to historians, of course). Other than that from what I've seen
of your posts you are simply not qualified to say things like "And why do MANY
college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and
Einstein's postulates?"

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

No, that's incorrect or more precisely: not even wrong. It's sufficiently
hazy to admit many meanings, depending on who's listening.

In the relativistic model the situation is this:

1. all clocks identical in construction tick the same (i.e. there is no
influence of "speed" or "spacetime curvature" on the clock mechanism),

2. clocks moving along different trajectories in space end up accumulating
different amounts of elapsed times,

3. nobody knows _why_ that is (relativity is silent on that question),
relativity only has a model that allows one to quantify this effect
very precisely,

4. this model is frequently claimed to be "the answer" to the question
in item 3 above (esp. in pop-sci). Whether the answer is "yes" or "no"
is a philosophical question. Physics is silent on the issue. (My personal
opinion is that the answer "no" is far more likely.)

5. time dilation etc. are effects arising from those differing elapsed
times corresponding to different trajectories when one attempts to
measure them in the simplest way.

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Don't wrote "nonsense" when you haven't learnt it yet. It makes you look
infantile.

--
Jan

[Ed Lake]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

The ordering and naming of some postulates is irrelevant (it may be of
interest to historians, of course). Other than that from what I've seen
of your posts you are simply not qualified to say things like "And why do MANY
college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and
Einstein's postulates?"

If all other colleges teach the correct order of the postulates and HARVARD teaches an INCORRECT order, that is certainly RELEVANT to any physics student attending Harvard. Plus, you have to ask WHY the book describes the wrong order. The answer is because the author MISUNDERSTANDS relativity and is teaching NONSENSE.

Your OPINION about my qualifications is of no interest to me. You do not know my "qualifications," and the only thing of importance here is whether I am right or wrong. Assuming that the most "qualified" person is always right has got to be one of the most STUPID beliefs every dreamed up by humans.

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

No, that's incorrect or more precisely: not even wrong. It's sufficiently
hazy to admit many meanings, depending on who's listening.
1. all clocks identical in construction tick the same (i.e. there is no
influence of "speed" or "spacetime curvature" on the clock mechanism),

NONSENSE. Clocks tick at DIFFERENT speeds depending upon gravity and velocity (GR and SR). They may all measure the same number of "ticks" per second, but the length of a second is different, so the clocks actually tick at different rates. You have to COMPARE the length of a second at the two locations to see the difference. You can do that by synchronizing start times for a measurement of a period of time and then measure the difference in end times.

"Spacetime" is a mathematical construct. It has little to do with reality.

Post by JanPB
2. clocks moving along different trajectories in space end up accumulating
different amounts of elapsed times,

That is "spacetime" gibberish.

Post by JanPB
3. nobody knows _why_ that is (relativity is silent on that question),
relativity only has a model that allows one to quantify this effect
very precisely,

I think I know why that is. It's because "Time is particle spin." http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf The spin of a particle slows down when gets closer to a gravitational mass AND it also slows down when it moves faster laterally (as part of a larger object, like a spaceship).

Post by JanPB
4. this model is frequently claimed to be "the answer" to the question
in item 3 above (esp. in pop-sci). Whether the answer is "yes" or "no"
is a philosophical question. Physics is silent on the issue. (My personal
opinion is that the answer "no" is far more likely.)
5. time dilation etc. are effects arising from those differing elapsed
times corresponding to different trajectories when one attempts to
measure them in the simplest way.

I understand that you have no clue as to how time dilation works. But it DOES work, and it has been demonstrated by many many experiments. So, if you wish to remain ignorant that is up to you. If you want to learn how time dilation works, then you need to start asking questions of someone who understands the subject. (Preferably someone other than me.)

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Don't wrote "nonsense" when you haven't learnt it yet. It makes you look
infantile.
--
Jan

Nonsense. If a statement is "nonsense," what other word should I use to describe it? "Debatable"? It is not "debatable" if people REFUSE to discuss it and just state their BELIEFS.

Ed

[kenseto]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

The ordering and naming of some postulates is irrelevant (it may be of
interest to historians, of course). Other than that from what I've seen
of your posts you are simply not qualified to say things like "And why do MANY
college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and
Einstein's postulates?"

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

No, that's incorrect or more precisely: not even wrong. It's sufficiently
hazy to admit many meanings, depending on who's listening.
1. all clocks identical in construction tick the same (i.e. there is no
influence of “speed" or "spacetime curvature" on the clock mechanism),

You are assuming that a clock second represent the same amount of time in different frames or a clock second represents an interval of absolute time......it doesn’t.

Post by JanPB
2. clocks moving along different trajectories in space end up accumulating
different amounts of elapsed times,

That’s because a clock second in different trajectories represents a different amount of of TIME (absolute time).

Post by JanPB
3. nobody knows _why_ that is (relativity is silent on that question),
relativity only has a model that allows one to quantify this effect
very precisely,

Relativists don’t know why. Ether believers know why. The clock that accumulate less clock seconds between meetings has a higher state of absolute motion.

Post by JanPB
4. this model is frequently claimed to be "the answer" to the question
in item 3 above (esp. in pop-sci). Whether the answer is "yes" or "no"
is a philosophical question. Physics is silent on the issue. (My personal
opinion is that the answer “no" is far more likely.)

It is not a philosophical question......it is a flawed assumption that absolute time doesn’t exist.

Post by JanPB
5. time dilation etc. are effects arising from those differing elapsed
times corresponding to different trajectories when one attempts to
measure them in the simplest way.

Clock time dilation is caused by that a clock second contain a different a,out of absolute time in different trajectories.

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Don't wrote "nonsense" when you haven't learnt it yet. It makes you look
infantile.
--
Jan

[Otis Kemble]

Post by kenseto

Post by JanPB
No, that's incorrect or more precisely: not even wrong. It's
sufficiently hazy to admit many meanings, depending on who's listening.
1. all clocks identical in construction tick the same (i.e. there is no
influence of “speed" or "spacetime curvature" on the clock mechanism),

You are assuming that a clock second represent the same amount of time
in different frames or a clock second represents an interval of absolute
time......it doesn’t.

I love your thinking. Those guys are handicapped by ancient math and
equations they learned in high-school. Today we have smartphones and cars
in space. Who needs equations when you have an octa-core computer at your
finger.

[Steve BH]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Post by Paparios
Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

And the facts say you are wrong.
Ed

" (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds "


Other way around. They go faster by 45 msec due to gravity potential, and 7 msec slower due to speed, and the difference is 38 msec/day.

[Ed Lake]

Post by Steve BH

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Post by Paparios
Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

And the facts say you are wrong.
Ed

" (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds "
Other way around. They go faster by 45 msec due to gravity potential, and 7 msec slower due to speed, and the difference is 38 msec/day.

Hmm. You're right. I've read that page dozens of times. I don't know why I got things mixed up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

------- start quote ----
The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.
----------- end quote -------

I see the web page was updated on March 11, 2017. I'll have to see if I quoted from it prior to that date.

Thanks again.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Steve BH

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Clearly it is you and Tom Roberts who are presenting "phantom SIGNALS," not the real thing. If the "phantom SIGNALS" were real, you'd be able to EXPLAIN things. But all you can do is demand that everyone convert to your BELIEF SYSTEM.

Well, nobody here, or in the physics community, is really interested in
converting you into a physicist. Firstly, those people are working hard in
unlocking new secrets of Nature and they have no time to educate people
like you. Secondly, if some person wants to contribute to that effort, the
way is quite clear: you have to study for several years to understand what is
the current status of the art in physics and from there see the area where
your effort can be useful.

I'm not interested in becoming a physicist. I'm an analyst and a writer. I'm just interested in ANALYZING and WRITING about why so many people have so many screwball interpretations of Relativity. And why do MANY college physics courses (but NOT ALL) teach NONSENSE about Relativity and Einstein's postulates? For example, the text book they use at HARVARD switches Einstein's postulates around. Einstein's Second Postulate is made the "first postulate" in their text book, and Einstein's First Postulate is made their "second postulate." Click here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Edjmorin/chap11.pdf
No other text book does that. They usually just TWIST and DISTORT the postulates into total NONSENSE. But some get it right.

Post by Paparios

Post by Ed Lake
Sorry, but I need facts, evidence and experiments to change what I UNDERSTAND. And I have no interest in your unsupported unexplained BELIEFS.
Ed

1) Atomic clocks are currently used in a variety of applications. Also there
are instrumentation available to measure their accuracy (so as to affirm their
accuracy is in the 2 × 10−16 to 3 × 10−16 range).
2)If you take an atomic clock and the proper measurement instrumentation into
different locations (Earth, airplane, the International Space Station, etc) in
all cases the ticking rate of those clocks does not change (ie, a caesium-133
atomic clock will always be measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz wherever the
clock is located).

WRONG! The ticking rates of those clocks DO change. Yes, they are always "measured to tick at 9192631770 Hz," but that is the speed per SECOND. In different locations the LENGTH OF A SECOND CHANGES, so the ticking rates change. That is what Relativity and Time Dilation are all about.

Post by Paparios
3) From (1) and (2) it follows that atomic clocks always tick at the same rate.

Nonsense. If you compare the length of a second on a GPS satellite versus a ground station, you will find that a second is SHORTER for the satellite.

Post by Paparios
4) A GPS satellite has several atomic clocks aboard. From those clocks an
internal reference frequency is obtained which is set, before launching, to
tick at 10.22999999543 MHz.

BEFORE IT IS LAUNCHED, the clock on a GPS satellite is set to run 7 microseconds per day SLOWER than identical earth clocks next to it. That way, when the clock is in orbit, it will tick at the SAME RATE as the clocks on earth, because in GPS orbit, time ticks 7 microseconds FASTER per day. (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds FASTER.) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations."

Post by Paparios
5) The SIGNALS received on the ground, from each GPS satellite, are ticking at
10.23 MHz, that is those SIGNALS are different in frequency to the satellite
internal reference.

Are you totally incapable of explaining what "SIGNALS" means to you? GPS satellites use TIME to determine location. The GPS system in your phone or car computes your location based upon HOW LONG it takes multiple signals from different GPS satellites to reach your location: "The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite."
So, their use of the word "signals" means that your car's GPS system receives "TIME SIGNALS" from the satellites (i.e., the current time at the satellite), and by comparing your time to the times on the GPS satellites, the DISTANCE to each satellite can be computed. And that allows your GPS system to triangulate your location on earth.

Post by Paparios
Those are the facts and the physicists job has been to explain how and why (4)
and (5) are different knowing that (3) is valid.

And the facts say you are wrong.
Ed

" (In GPS orbits, Time ticks 45 microseconds per day FASTER due to General Relativity, and 38 microseconds SLOWER per day due to Special Relativity. So, the net difference is 7 microseconds "
Other way around. They go faster by 45 msec due to gravity potential, and 7 msec slower due to speed, and the difference is 38 msec/day.

Hmm. You're right. I've read that page dozens of times. I don't know why I got things mixed up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
------- start quote ----
The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.
----------- end quote -------
I see the web page was updated on March 11, 2017. I'll have to see if I quoted from it prior to that date.
Thanks again.
Ed

I got it right in my paper on Time Dilation: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v5.pdf

So, I must have just been working by memory when posting here, and I remembered things incorrectly.

Thanks again, Steve BH, for bringing that to my attention.

Ed

[JanPB]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

No, he's telling me what he BELIEVES the experiments measured.
Evidently, neither you nor Tom Roberts can explain anything. It's all just about what you BELIEVE.

We believe we report certain facts correctly.

Post by Ed Lake
And you're telling me I have to take the courses you took, and read what you read, and that way I will BELIEVE what you BELIEVE.

The courses, etc., are not there to make you "believe" in anything in the
sense of faith but to tell you what the relevant theories are (what they
consist of). It's like reading a city map except it happens to be complex
enough to take several years of full-time work to get done with it to a
reasonable extent.

--
Jan

[Ed Lake]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.
--
Jan

During the past couple years that I've been researching the STUPID things that some people believe about Time Dilation, I've accumulated 38 different college physics text books, PLUS multiple editions of some of them, PLUS about a HUNDRED other books on physics, including Einstein's books.

If you and Tom Roberts are incapable of explaining the phantom "SIGNALS" that you both so strongly BELIEVE in, could you name a physics book that explains it? I probably have it. If I don't, I can probably find a copy somewhere.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Ed Lake

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying
they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot
explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other
experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND
clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.
--
Jan

During the past couple years that I've been researching the STUPID things
that some people believe about Time Dilation, I've accumulated 38
different college physics text books,

Which you have not read with any depth.

Post by Ed Lake
PLUS multiple editions of some of them, PLUS about a HUNDRED other books
on physics, including Einstein's books.

Which you have not read with any depth.

Collecting things you do not USE is of no value.

Post by Ed Lake
If you and Tom Roberts are incapable of explaining the phantom "SIGNALS"
that you both so strongly BELIEVE in, could you name a physics book that
explains it? I probably have it. If I don't, I can probably find a copy somewhere.
Ed

[Python]

Post by Ed Lake
During the past couple years that I've been researching the STUPID things
that some people believe about Time Dilation

What a loss of time and money, as what you were searching was just
right there in your skull.

[Steve BH]

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.
--
Jan

"So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom"."


Well, it's not literally incorrect when it comes to gravitational time dilation, which can be measured not with very small height differences (as little as a foot). Atomic clocks do tick more slowly the lower they are. They LITERALLY tick more slowly.

As for moving clocks, the ticking rate of a moving atomic clock is confused by Doppler effects, but certainly unstable subatomic particles have drastically longer half-lives when moving very rapidly. There is no internal "clock" in these things, as they do not "age" (they have no odometer, so an old particle is no different from a new one of the same type). Still, something makes them decay with a certain dP/dt = k, and that k works in most ways like a clock, if you look at particles in aggregate. And it too slows with speed.

[JanPB]

Post by Steve BH

Post by JanPB

Post by Ed Lake

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the metric integrated
over its worldline increases in path length by 1 second -- the
correspondence between world and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but
your own blather, and misreadings of some articles.

Tom Roberts also wrote, "in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate."
What does "usual rate" mean?

All you have to do is read what I wrote -- the answer is right up there in the
paragraph I quoted.

Post by Ed Lake
It has been explained to you many times that
the NIST lifted a clock by just one foot and it ticked faster

BUT IT DID NOT!!!!
What they MEASURED was SIGNALS between the clocks, and the effect they measured
is an EFFECT ON SIGNALS.

In other words, you're saying the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) didn't know what they were doing? You're saying they're all just a bunch of incompetents?

No. He is telling you what the experiments actually measured. One of the
big problems here is that pop-sci presentations of relativity have over
the decades created a simplified metaphor that's skewed to the point of
incorrectness. So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom". This is perfectly fine
for the casual reader but if your intent is to write critiques of the theory,
you have to understand it first. There is no other way.

Post by Ed Lake
And these magical "SIGNALS" that you keep mentioning (but cannot explain) change everything?

They run against your current understanding of the subject, so they appear
"wrong".

Post by Ed Lake
Do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in the Hafele-Keating experiment?

No. But they do run against your current understanding of the subject, so they
appear "contrary to" Hafele-Keating.

Post by Ed Lake
And do these magical "SIGNALS" also change everything in all the other experiments which confirm that clocks slow down when moving fast, AND clocks slow down the closer you are to the center of the earth?

Ditto. Bottom line is you are now fighting a phantom, not the real thing.
--
Jan

"So time dilation presented as "clocks tick slower" (which is
literally incorrect) has become the "accepted wisdom"."
Well, it's not literally incorrect when it comes to gravitational time dilation, which can be measured not with very small height differences (as little as a foot). Atomic clocks do tick more slowly the lower they are. They LITERALLY tick more slowly.

At a distance. That's what the argument is about. The distinction global vs. local is never
discussed in pop-sci and it's the key.

--
Jan

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.

And, of course, GPS clocks ticking at modified rate
are against its idiotic prophecies.

[kenseto]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake

EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is
defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine
transition.

Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks
at its usual rate.

“at its usual rate” has no meaning. Cocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

Post by Tom Roberts
That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

kenseto <***@att.net> wrote:
Cocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
That’s ok. Simultaneous orgasm is largely a myth anyway.

[Otis Kemble]

Post by kenseto
Cocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
That’s ok. Simultaneous orgasm is largely a myth anyway.

You don't understand. That's a myth, simultaneous or not. Purely
epiphenomenon.

[Otis Kemble]

Post by kenseto

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when
you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.

So you claim.
The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT
theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in
complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS
ticks at its usual rate.

“at its usual rate” has no meaning. Cocks in relative motion accumulate
clock seconds at different rates.

Absolutely. That should go a century realizing that "at its usual rate" is
ill-defined, or rather not a definition at all. Thank you making this
thing obvious.

[kenseto]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Ed Lake
In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount,
than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
identical conditions."
In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the
poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040
miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while
turning in place.

1) The earth is not a perfect sphere (as Einstein implicitly assumed). The
earth is an oblate spheroid, and anywhere on the planet at mean sea
level (i.e. the geoid), clocks will remain in sync.
2) Clocks do NOT "tick faster or slower", they ALWAYS tick at their usual
rate, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or
where they might be located (e.g. at any gravitational potential). For
a cesium atomic oscillator that rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz, BY DEFINITION.
Note however, that when one COMPARES SIGNALS from clocks that are moving
differently (relative to each other), or are located at different gravitational
potentials, one observes Doppler shift and/or "gravitational time dilation" in
the SIGNALS.
It is manifestly impossible to directly compare such clocks,
one can only compare SIGNALS from them.

Post by Ed Lake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.htm

Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth

Post by Ed Lake
between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate.

Not really -- first: that map shows SPEED RELATIVE TO THE ECI, not "time
ticking", and second: see #2 above. If one always considers clocks at the
altitude of mean sea level (the geoid), then they will all remain in sync, and
one could not claim "ticking at a different rate" (see #2 for why such claims
are always wrong).

Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph. Miami is moving at about 900 mph. London is
moving at 620 mph. Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph. [...]

You are confused, and do not realize your confusion. Whenever you say "moving",
your MUST say relative to what that motion is measured. Here you apparently are
referencing to the ECI frame.

Post by Ed Lake
Einstein was correct IN THEORY, but he was off in practice because the earth
is not a perfect sphere.

Rather, he was correct in SR, which inherently neglects gravitation. He realized
the error when he understood gravitation much better, and with the advent of GR
we can calculate how signals from such clocks compare; calculations which agree
exquisitely with measurements.

Post by Ed Lake
Moreover, your argument is mainly about what happens at the EQUATOR. Does
it also work for the difference in rotation speed between London and Miami?

Yes.

Post by Ed Lake
Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650
mph. Do you deny those speeds?

No, relative to the ECI.

Post by Ed Lake
Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different
lengths for their seconds?

Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the
second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

No, clocks in relative motion do not accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. The reason is that a cycle of the Cs 133 atom has different TIME content in different frames. The SR math says so.....one second in observer A’s clock is worth (equal) 1/gamma seconds on B’s clock.

Post by Tom Roberts
It also depends on which theory you apply. If you assume SR applies, and
completely neglect gravity, then comparing signals from clocks at those
locations would yield Doppler shifts due to their different motions relative to
the ECI. If you assume GR applies, and compare signals from clocks on the geoid
at those locations, then there will be no Doppler shifts. In practice, of
course, gravity applies.
You STILL have not learned anything. How sad.
Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

So in 1905 Einstein concluded that the moving clock runs slower, and this was going to become "the traveling twin remains younger" later. But the conclusion was non sequitur - it didn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The situation was dangerous - at that time scientists were still not brainwashed by the Einsteinian propaganda.

In 1918 Einstein almost admitted the failure of special relativity but informed the scientific community that his general relativity did solve the problem:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

The "homogeneous gravitational field" was an idiotic hoax of course. So idiotic that nowadays most Einsteinians avoid any discussion of it. Yet some do teach it, euphemistically:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Pentcho Valev

[Ed Lake]

Post by Pentcho Valev
So in 1905 Einstein concluded that the moving clock runs slower, and this was going to become "the traveling twin remains younger" later. But the conclusion was non sequitur - it didn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The situation was dangerous - at that time scientists were still not brainwashed by the Einsteinian propaganda.
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin." http://youtu.be/ERgwVm9qWKA
"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox
John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

What you are doing is showing a bunch of screwball misinterpretations of Einstein's theories and blaming the misinterpretations on Einstein.

The exception is the quote about "homogeneous gravitational field" which is from a paper where Einstein IMAGINES A CONVERSATION between a relativist and a critic. So, it isn't really Einstein saying anything. It is an IMAGINARY conversation between two other people.

Every time you quote John D. Norton you are quoting someone who has a SCREWBALL misunderstanding of Einstein's theories.

And the quotes you use above sometimes interpret "running slower" as meaning "a clock running slower than it ran before," and sometimes meaning "a clock running slower than another clock." Those are two VERY DIFFERENT meanings.

Ed