The GPS second vs the ground clock second

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:31:47 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:10:29 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:59:07 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:


I might amend that to state that there is no "natural" absolute
time,
except perhaps for one's own wris****ch.

You aren't improving at all Ghost.

Absolute time is universal. Simultaneity is universal. Even Einstein
provided a
way to absolutely synch clocks and measure times absolutely.

NOW here is NOW everywhere.

One second later is one second later EVERYWHERE.

Idiot. The passage of 1 second here does not correspond to the passage
of
a
clock second there.

Why not?

Idiot....that's how the GPS works. The passage of a clock second on the
ground clock is represented by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation and
a
ground clock second is worth 9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation
up
at the GPS location.

If that were true, the OO should count N clock ticks per orbit when the GC
joins him in the orbit.
He doesn't. Both he and the GO count N+n ticks per orbit, showing that the
clock has physically changed.

According to the GO his clock counts N ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR /GR) that the OC clock counts N+n ticks per orbit and N+n=M
numerically.
According to the OO his clock counts M ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR/GR) that the GC clock counts M-m ticks per orbit and M-m=N
numerically.

This is the last time I am going to explain to you.

Ken Seto

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:55:51 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:31:47 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


Idiot....that's how the GPS works. The passage of a clock second on the
ground clock is represented by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation and
a
ground clock second is worth 9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the radiation
up
at the GPS location.

If that were true, the OO should count N clock ticks per orbit when the GC
joins him in the orbit.
He doesn't. Both he and the GO count N+n ticks per orbit, showing that the
clock has physically changed.

According to the GO his clock counts N ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR /GR) that the OC clock counts N+n ticks per orbit and N+n=M
numerically.
According to the OO his clock counts M ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR/GR) that the GC clock counts M-m ticks per orbit and M-m=N
numerically.

This is the last time I am going to explain to you.

Your explanation is unsatisfactory.

You are claiming that one observer receives N ticks per orbit and the other
receives N+m ticks per orbit.

......bring on the tick fairies Ken!!! You have lost a few somewhere....

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Ken Seto



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:55:51 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:31:47 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


Idiot....that's how the GPS works. The passage of a clock second on
the
ground clock is represented by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
and
a
ground clock second is worth 9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the
radiation
up
at the GPS location.

If that were true, the OO should count N clock ticks per orbit when the
GC
joins him in the orbit.
He doesn't. Both he and the GO count N+n ticks per orbit, showing that
the
clock has physically changed.

According to the GO his clock counts N ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR /GR) that the OC clock counts N+n ticks per orbit and N+n=M
numerically.
According to the OO his clock counts M ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR/GR) that the GC clock counts M-m ticks per orbit and M-m=N
numerically.

This is the last time I am going to explain to you.

Your explanation is unsatisfactory.

You are claiming that one observer receives N ticks per orbit and the
other
receives N+m ticks per orbit.

****ing idiot....the earth observer counts N ticks per orbit on his clock
and the orbiting observer counts M ticks per orbit on his clock.

.....bring on the tick fairies Ken!!! You have lost a few somewhere....

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

****ing idiot.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:07:04 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:55:51 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:31:47 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


Idiot....that's how the GPS works. The passage of a clock second on
the
ground clock is represented by 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
and
a
ground clock second is worth 9,192,631,774.4647 periods of the
radiation
up
at the GPS location.

If that were true, the OO should count N clock ticks per orbit when the
GC
joins him in the orbit.
He doesn't. Both he and the GO count N+n ticks per orbit, showing that
the
clock has physically changed.

According to the GO his clock counts N ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR /GR) that the OC clock counts N+n ticks per orbit and N+n=M
numerically.
According to the OO his clock counts M ticks per orbit and he predicts
(using SR/GR) that the GC clock counts M-m ticks per orbit and M-m=N
numerically.

This is the last time I am going to explain to you.

Your explanation is unsatisfactory.

You are claiming that one observer receives N ticks per orbit and the
other
receives N+m ticks per orbit.

****ing idiot....the earth observer counts N ticks per orbit on his clock
and the orbiting observer counts M ticks per orbit on his clock.

.....bring on the tick fairies Ken!!! You have lost a few somewhere....

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

****ing idiot.


Ken, it is a basic fact of life that both observers will count all the ticks
emitted by the clock each orbit.
They MUST get the same answer..

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter's product doesn't fall apart till AFTER the sale.

kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
kenseto wrote:

NO.....A clock at absolute rest would have the fastest clock rate
compared
to all the clocks that are not in a state of absolute rest. In other
words,
all the moving clocks are running at a slower rate than the clock at
absolute rest.
It seems here that you allow the possibility of that distinguished
frame.
Sure but no object in the universe is in that distinguish frame.
Why not?

Because every object in the universe is in a state of realtive motion

You might just be on to something here.

and
relative motion between any two objects is the vector difference of their
individual motions.

That doesn't even attempt to answer the question but I expected that.
Anyway, what are these individual motions of yours relative to?

In SR the observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and
that's
why an SR observer asserts that he sees all the clocks moving wrt him
are
running slow.
SR says no such thing.

Sure SR asserts such thing. The PoR allows an SR observer to consider
himself to be in any frame of reference to do physics. Einstein (SR) choosed
the absolute rest frame

That's a bold faced lie. It's a lie you tell to to try to make him wrong.

and that's why SR only has time dilation and length
contraction equations. If Einstein didn't choose the absolute rest frame to
do physics he would have included time expansion and length expansion
equations.

Your premise is false so your conclusion cannot be born by it.


A clock having a velocity component coming at
you can be seen to be running fast in SR. No problem. Have you heard
of blue shift?

Doppler shift does not represent the actual rate of an observed clock. Think
about it....if a clock is moving toward you, you would say that its clock
rate is running fast compared to your clock and the same clock moving past
you and now it is receding from you and you would say that it is now running
slow compared to your clock.

So far as I can tell by just observing it and counting ticks.

Question: What causes the observed clock to
change rate? The answer: Nothing.

Why do you think the clock changes its rate? The observer holding it
sees no change.


Do you think Einstein would agree with you that this is what his SRT
assumes?
Yes. If he didn't he would have discovered IRT.
Whew! So despite Einstein's basic assertion that there is no absolute
rest you think he would agree that an observer must be at absolute
rest to see moving clocks run slower than his. I think he was smarter
than that.

Whew! Einstein didn't assert that there is no absolute rest frame.

He most certainly did.

He
asserted that all frames (including the absolute rest frame) are equivalent
(the PoR). He choosed the simplest frame to do physics and that's the
absolute rest frame.

That's a bald faced lie and you know it.


In real life no observer is in a state of absolute rest.
Do you believe that it is possible _in principle_ for an observer or
clock to be in your state of absolute rest?

NO....all objects in the universe are in a state of absolute
motion....especially in the present of gravity.
Let's leave gravity out of it. SR has nothing at all to say about
what happens when it's presence is of any signifigance.

But you can't leave gravity out of it. All objects in the universe are under
the influence of gravity.

Ok, SR explains a toy universe in which there is no gravity. It still
explains it correctly. You can find places where gravity is too small
to have a signifigant effect on your measurements, a toy universe for
all practical purposes, and in those regions your measurements will be
entirely consistent with SR. You gotta keep in mind that SR is not a
belief system to argue philosophically as you try to do, it is a self
consistent formal system which models the way that reality behaves in
a restricted sense (no forces or accelerations.) Many have looked for
a way for a long time but no one has succeeded in breaking the model.
It's lookin' good.

So what prevents an object in your state of absolute motion from
decelerating from that state to your state of absolute rest?

For an object by itself....there is no such thing as deceleration. When add
energy to an object and cause it to accelerate you are increasing its state
of absolute motion.

That is the stupidest thing you have said yet and that places it atop
a huge mound of stupid. You are disqualified. Next.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein