vuquta Posted January 18, 2010 Author Posted January 18, 2010 vuquta, it was answered, read the posts following yours... where and how.
vuquta Posted January 18, 2010 Author Posted January 18, 2010 I'm out. OK, when you recharge, let's get back to the math proofs.
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 OK, when you recharge, let's get back to the math proofs. I doubt that, vuquta. He didn't say he's taking a break. He gave up. Maybe you should go over his answers again. I believe it's about the 4th repetition of the circular argument we've been having even in your last thread. You have a very basic confusion with coordinate systems as inertial references in special relativity. We've been at it. Again and again. For a while. ajb gave up. You are going in circles. I recommend you go back, read his posts to you again, and see if you have anything remaining to ask.
vuquta Posted January 18, 2010 Author Posted January 18, 2010 I doubt that, vuquta. He didn't say he's taking a break. He gave up. Maybe you should go over his answers again. I believe it's about the 4th repetition of the circular argument we've been having even in your last thread. You have a very basic confusion with coordinate systems as inertial references in special relativity. We've been at it. Again and again. For a while. ajb gave up. You are going in circles. I recommend you go back, read his posts to you again, and see if you have anything remaining to ask. I have. There are many problems. No one here can prove the distance light travels is the distance between the light emission point and the receiver in the frame. Further, I offered a simple GPS experiment to demonstrate light cannot be measured c in 2 frames. Yet no one addressed these issues. Finally, I offered twin rigid body spheres and no one could prove two different origins for the light sphere. So, if you can produce proofs that these are wrong, let's see them. Otherwise, he gave up because he failed.
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 You are frustrating, vuquta. We talked about this. You received answers. Either there's a language barrier here that we desperately need to overcome, or you're not really reading.
Klaynos Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 Yes, well I would like to see this motor thing since you used diodes before to control timing. http://www.standa.lt/products/catalog/motorised_positioners?item=64∏=motorized_translation_stage I want to know exactly how it is done.So far, all the posts indicate they use frequencey to determine distance and you have not come up with any logical refutation to this. I don't even know what you mean by this, there is no frequency measurement in the experiment. I can't find a good schematic for the experiment, but the time delay is introduced by increasing the path difference, this short pulse is used to measure a much longer (than the pulse in time) effect which always takes the same amount of time. This can be used to show the time delay from one set up is the same as the other. This can then be used to show that the speed of light is c because the dynamics of the relaxation of the thing we're measuring can be calculated and compared to the measurement. That's not what is done because c is known so we just use that and vary other things but if we don't c fits very well to the known value. I would like to see a paper or an explanation from you on exactly how you measure distance. With a ruler... it's more complicated than that because the distances are so small but that's pretty much the jist of it, we know what rotation of the motor relates to what distance on the stage.
swansont Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 As I said, post #60, and I was very specific, light is measured different speeds. Since I was quite specific, it should be easy to refute it. It was already explained to you that you are using GR; the existence of different gravitational frames and the Sagnac effect mean that different observers will measure different values for c. So your objection is moot. Further, you make up terms, like "simultaneity shift" which you have not adequately defined, and only serve to complicate the issue. Keep to standard definitions, please. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwhere and how. Ignoring responses and merely repeating your stance is not an acceptable debating tactic.
vuquta Posted January 18, 2010 Author Posted January 18, 2010 (edited) You are frustrating, vuquta. We talked about this. You received answers. Either there's a language barrier here that we desperately need to overcome, or you're not really reading. I read everything. I also gave extremely specific examples also like with GPS and twin spheres. We are on measuring c and giving an experimental proof of clock timing without frequency. For example, some offered MMX as a proof. I countered with evidence that MMX does not rule out emission theory and thus does not prove the light postulate. Now, Einstein said that it is with experience that the light path is exactly the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the receiver. There is no such experience. So far this matter is not resolved. Now, we could simply accept this on blind faith without any type of proof, but I have demonstrated specific problems with trying to measure c. No one is arguing here that light is not a constant in terms of its motion through space. That has been experimentally proven. So, the focus of this discussion is on the light path and how to know it. Again, I have offered examples that show we cannot know it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt was already explained to you that you are using GR; the existence of different gravitational frames and the Sagnac effect mean that different observers will measure different values for c. So your objection is moot. This is false. I supplied a link to a GPS paper. This paper factors in 1) GR 2) Sagnac 3) Time dilation I said all this. Now, the satellites are synched with the ground based clocks. That is not debatable. I then set up a thought experiment. Since GPS does account for GR and Sagnac, these can be accepted as factored out of the results. In other words, but adjusting for these, it is equivalent to these effects not existing. Now, if they had not been factoired into the GPS clock beat, then your point would be valid to mention them. Now, with LT t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ Since, GPS and the ground clocks only differ by time dilation, factoring out GR and Sagnac, we are missing the term (vx/c²) λ and what lingo do you use for this? Others in physics call is the simultaneity shift. Either way, if LT is correct, then it is the case that the further a GPS satellite is from a gound clock, the more out of sync it must become with the ground clock and that is false. If that is false, then as my thought experiment showed, the gound and GPS frames will not measure the same value for c. It is this term (vx/c²)λ that causes rwo frames in relative motion to measure the same value of c for the same light beam. Again, GPS does not program for this term. Thus, LT is not a valid explanation for this light beam event. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged http://www.standa.lt/products/catalog/motorised_positioners?item=64∏=motorized_translation_stage I don't even know what you mean by this, there is no frequency measurement in the experiment. I can't find a good schematic for the experiment, but the time delay is introduced by increasing the path difference, this short pulse is used to measure a much longer (than the pulse in time) effect which always takes the same amount of time. This can be used to show the time delay from one set up is the same as the other. This can then be used to show that the speed of light is c because the dynamics of the relaxation of the thing we're measuring can be calculated and compared to the measurement. That's not what is done because c is known so we just use that and vary other things but if we don't c fits very well to the known value. With a ruler... it's more complicated than that because the distances are so small but that's pretty much the jist of it, we know what rotation of the motor relates to what distance on the stage. Thanks for the post. What differences are you comparing? Edited January 18, 2010 by vuquta Consecutive posts merged.
swansont Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 For example, some offered MMX as a proof. I countered with evidence that MMX does not rule out emission theory and thus does not prove the light postulate. But Sagnac rules this out as a viable theory, so you have to stop using it. You can't just ignore evidence. This is false. I supplied a link to a GPS paper. This paper factors in 1) GR 2) Sagnac 3) Time dilation I said all this. Not in post #60 you didn't, and you pointed to that post as your example. Now, the satellites are synched with the ground based clocks. That is not debatable. I then set up a thought experiment. Since GPS does account for GR and Sagnac, these can be accepted as factored out of the results. In other words, but adjusting for these, it is equivalent to these effects not existing. Now, if they had not been factoired into the GPS clock beat, then your point would be valid to mention them. Yes, GPS accounts for them. GPS works, even if your thought experiment disagrees. (Reality wins). But you need to do so as well in any analysis of GPS. Now, with LT t' = ( t - vc/c² )λ Since, GPS and the ground clocks only differ by time dilation, factoring out GR and Sagnac, we are missing the term (vc/c²) λ and what lingo do you use for this? Others in physics call is the simultaneity shift. Either way, if LT is correct, then it is the case that the further a GPS satellite is from a gound clock, the more out of sync it must become with the ground clock and that is false. If that is false, then as my thought experiment showed, the gound and GPS frames will not measure the same value for c. It is this term (vc/c²)λ that causes rwo frames in relative motion to measure the same value of c for the same light beam. Again, GPS does not program for this term. Thus, LT is not a valid explanation for this light beam event. What is LT? "simultaneity shift" appears in Google only about 600 times, and most of the top hits are forum discussions, and your own works. Those don't count. How is it that GPS works?
vuquta Posted January 18, 2010 Author Posted January 18, 2010 (edited) But Sagnac rules this out as a viable theory, so you have to stop using it. You can't just ignore evidence. Absolutely correct. I am not at all advocating Ritz's theory. Tests from moving light source also rule this out. So, that is not what I am saying. I am saying exactly half of what you are saying. Light moves through space at one speed c regardless of the motion of the emitter. We agree on this fact. Now, we need to find a way to measure this. We cannot use frequency, because as a method it cannot rule out Ritz's theory and thus cannot be used as a reliable tool for measuing the absolute constant speed of light. Further, light motion is completely independent of any frame's motion. Here are Einstein's words. I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the relativity postulate; and I considered what would be more probable, the principle of the constancy of c, as was demanded by Maxwell’s equations, or the constancy of c, exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/01/Norton.doc So, given that the motion of light is indendent of the frame's motion and independent of all frames in the universe, how do we use the coordinates of the frame to measure the light path? That is the problen, because we do not know how these coordinates are moving through space. Some say at this point, moving relative to what? That is the point, we do not know. In addition, Einstein suggersted that the light path is exactly the same as the path between the emission point in the frame and the termination point. He said this is true based on experience. But, this is completely false because there are no such experiments to verify this. Not in post #60 you didn't, and you pointed to that post as your example. Yes, you are correct. Here is the GPS link, chapter 5, it is well written. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ Yes, GPS accounts for them. GPS works, even if your thought experiment disagrees. (Reality wins). But you need to do so as well in any analysis of GPS. Since GR and Sagnac are accounted for in GPS, we can ignore them or we are double counting them. They have already been handled in GPS. And you are correct and that is my whole point, reality wins and we have relative motion but this equation does not apply and is not part of GPS, only time dilation is. t' = ( r - vx/c²)λ So, my thought experiment is not trying to prove GPS does not work, it does, it is proving that t' = ( t - vx/c²) does not. Now, GPS says it validates SR because of time dilation, but that is only the adjustment tλ. The adjustment (-vxλ/c²) is missing and that is full SR. What is LT? "simultaneity shift" appears in Google only about 600 times, and most of the top hits are forum discussions, and your own works. Those don't count. How is it that GPS works? LT - Lorentzian Transformations Well, there is the doppler/frequency version and there is the time version. The mathematical definition for the time version is (-vxλ/c²) . I will call it whatever you want though. GPS works just fine. It does not contain this adjustment (-vxλ/c²) as required by t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ of SR. Since we have relative motion and GPS works without (-vxλ/c²) , then we can conclude this term is not needed for relative motion as SR claims. Thus, GPS needs 1) GR 2) Sagnac 3) Time dilation and not 4) (-vxλ/c²) Then post #60 went on to show the earth frame and the GPS frame measure a different speed of light. This absolutely does not say though that light speed is not constant. It simply shows the measurement technique of SR does not work but SR is built on this technique. Edited January 18, 2010 by vuquta
swansont Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 GPS works just fine. It does not contain this adjustment (-vxλ/c²) as required by t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ of SR. This is the time dilation. I don't understand your objection — this is accounted for in GPS.
vuquta Posted January 18, 2010 Author Posted January 18, 2010 Originally Posted by vuquta GPS works just fine. It does not contain this adjustment (-vxλ/c²) as required by t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ of SR. This is the time dilation. I don't understand your objection — this is accounted for in GPS. From the ground based clocks, because of the motion of a GPS satellite, ignoring Sagnac and GR, the clocks in orbit would beat slow, so they are upward adjusted before launch by applying the term t' = tλ and altering the frequency. t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ t' = tλ - vxλ/c² So, there is an additional adjustment that should be showing up in the ground based clocks under SR, if SR were accurate, as (-vxλ/c²). That is not happening. No matter the x, the GPS satellite does not need this additional adjustment for the ground based clocks. But, SR is very specific based with the full theory of t' = tλ - vxλ/c², the further away the moving clocks are from the stationary clock, the more out of sync. This is false based on the scientific evidence.
swansont Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 From the ground based clocks, because of the motion of a GPS satellite, ignoring Sagnac and GR, the clocks in orbit would beat slow, so they are upward adjusted before launch by applying the term t' = tλ and altering the frequency. No, what is applied is [math]\omega' = \omega\lambda[/math] Now, why do you need to apply time dilation twice?
Baby Astronaut Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) the path between the emission point in the frame and the receiver......... So, the focus of this discussion is on the light path and how to know it. Might it be possible you're asking for how to measure the world line of light? In physics, the world line of an object is the unique path of that object as it travels through 4-dimensional spacetime. And might you be wondering if Earth's movement through space potentially affects light's speed here in one direction more than another? For example, if light moves "with the grain" of Earth's direction of travel, its speed would be greater than if moving "against the grain" of that direction? Finally, might you be wondering that light's path from one measuring device to another isn't straight due to Earth's and the sun's movements, thus light's path would actually be a longer curve (than revealed by measurements) from start to finish? If so... Then you might want to check out the following info. • (YouTube) The basic gist is how speed slows down time. It's an important reason for the speed of light remaining a constant -- in space and on Earth -- regardless of direction. (I had asked questions related to that a while back on the forums) • Observations of events are relative According to the theory of Einstein, all observers will automatically measure identical speeds of light. This has bizarre results, which is mostly explained with the following example (of Einstein himself): Suppose somebody outside the train standing in a station, sees a flash of light in the middle of a train riding along at the very high speed. As the train is moving, he will see the light a fraction sooner in the back of the train than in the front. Somebody inside the train sees the same flashlight, however he sees the light travelling at exactly the same speed to the back and the front of the train. The distance of the flash of light to the front and the back are equal, therefor back and front will be lighted-up at the same time. The conclusion one can derive from this that an event, which is experienced by somebody at the same time, may be experienced by somebody else at different time intervals. • (YouTube) Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear. But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first. Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events. • http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ProsperH/AST3033/relativity.htm If you conduct an experiment in a moving vehicle (provided it is moving at a constant velocity, that is, a constant speed in a fixed direction) the experiment will give exactly the same result as one conducted at rest. This is why we can drink a can of soda just as well in a vehicle moving at a constant velocity as we can when we are at rest relative to the ground. The first postulate says, in effect, that it is impossible to determine whether it is we who are moving, or the ground, or both. The most we can do is to determine our speed relative to something. The Earth goes around the Sun at a relative speed of 30 km/s. But this value is the speed relative to the Sun. The Earth also moves relative to the galactic center. Einstein proposed that there is no absolute meaning to the phrase: the Earth's speed through space. All we can ever say is the Earth's speed relative to something. That something could be, for example, the Earth's speed relative to the cosmic microwave background. The second postulate says that the speed of light is always observed to be the same however we, or the source, might be moving. It is a universal invariant. The consequence of Einstein's two postulates are radical: time and space become intertwined in surprising ways. Events that may be simultaneous for one observer can occur at different times for another. If not... Then I've no freakin idea what you're trying to get at Edited January 19, 2010 by Baby Astronaut grammar nuances
vuquta Posted January 19, 2010 Author Posted January 19, 2010 No, what is applied is [math]\omega' = \omega\lambda[/math] Now, why do you need to apply time dilation twice? I am not applying it twice. But, to be technically correct, when doing a GPS experiment, you need to back out the preprogrammed time dilation in the satellites when you compare the ground clock time with the orbit frame time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMight it be possible you're asking for how to measure the world line of light? In physics, the world line of an object is the unique path of that object as it travels through 4-dimensional spacetime. And might you be wondering if Earth's movement through space potentially affects light's speed here in one direction more than another? For example, if light moves "with the grain" of Earth's direction of travel, its speed would be greater than if moving "against the grain" of that direction? Finally, might you be wondering that light's path from one measuring device to another isn't straight due to Earth's and the sun's movements, thus light's path would actually be a longer curve (than revealed by measurements) from start to finish? If so... Then you might want to check out the following info. • (YouTube) The basic gist is how speed slows down time. It's an important reason for the speed of light remaining a constant -- in space and on Earth -- regardless of direction. (I had asked questions related to that a while back on the forums) • Observations of events are relative According to the theory of Einstein, all observers will automatically measure identical speeds of light. This has bizarre results, which is mostly explained with the following example (of Einstein himself): Suppose somebody outside the train standing in a station, sees a flash of light in the middle of a train riding along at the very high speed. As the train is moving, he will see the light a fraction sooner in the back of the train than in the front. Somebody inside the train sees the same flashlight, however he sees the light travelling at exactly the same speed to the back and the front of the train. The distance of the flash of light to the front and the back are equal, therefor back and front will be lighted-up at the same time. The conclusion one can derive from this that an event, which is experienced by somebody at the same time, may be experienced by somebody else at different time intervals. • (YouTube) Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear. But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first. Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events. • http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ProsperH/AST3033/relativity.htm If you conduct an experiment in a moving vehicle (provided it is moving at a constant velocity, that is, a constant speed in a fixed direction) the experiment will give exactly the same result as one conducted at rest. This is why we can drink a can of soda just as well in a vehicle moving at a constant velocity as we can when we are at rest relative to the ground. The first postulate says, in effect, that it is impossible to determine whether it is we who are moving, or the ground, or both. The most we can do is to determine our speed relative to something. The Earth goes around the Sun at a relative speed of 30 km/s. But this value is the speed relative to the Sun. The Earth also moves relative to the galactic center. Einstein proposed that there is no absolute meaning to the phrase: the Earth's speed through space. All we can ever say is the Earth's speed relative to something. That something could be, for example, the Earth's speed relative to the cosmic microwave background. The second postulate says that the speed of light is always observed to be the same however we, or the source, might be moving. It is a universal invariant. The consequence of Einstein's two postulates are radical: time and space become intertwined in surprising ways. Events that may be simultaneous for one observer can occur at different times for another. If not... Then I've no freakin idea what you're trying to get at OK, what I am doing is forcing the equation t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ up against the experiment evidence of GPS. GPS only has a time dilation term built into it and not the full LT transformation. If the full LT transformatiuon were true, then the further the x distance of the GPS satellite from the ground based receiver, since the GPS is in relative motion to the ground receiver, the more out of sync the GPS time should become. It does not.
swansont Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 OK, what I am doing is forcing the equation t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ up against the experiment evidence of GPS. GPS only has a time dilation term built into it and not the full LT transformation. If the full LT transformatiuon were true, then the further the x distance of the GPS satellite from the ground based receiver, since the GPS is in relative motion to the ground receiver, the more out of sync the GPS time should become. It does not. No, this is not true. The frequency is adjusted for the GPS clock. To get the time difference, you have to integrate along the path, i.e. as the object travels it accumulates more phase difference (rather, it would if the frequency was not adjusted), which seems to be what you are describing. But it's not necessary, because the adjustment is made. You need to account for it if the clocks are identical, and they are not.
vuquta Posted January 19, 2010 Author Posted January 19, 2010 No, this is not true. The frequency is adjusted for the GPS clock. To get the time difference, you have to integrate along the path, i.e. as the object travels it accumulates more phase difference (rather, it would if the frequency was not adjusted), which seems to be what you are describing. But it's not necessary, because the adjustment is made. You need to account for it if the clocks are identical, and they are not. 1) I do not need to integrate when discussing SR and inertial motion. 2) The frequency of a satellite is adjusted for many things, time dilation being one of them. And, no it does not accumululate as the distance grows in GPS, but it does with SR given t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ. So, the GPS example I gave clearly demonstrates two different path lengths for the laser shot from GPS1 to GPS2, where compared to the ground. The clocks for both frames are in sync and so the time for the laser flight is the same for both path lengths. Yet, the time dilation in GPS must be backed out However, the term (-vx/c²)λ is missing as required by SR. Therefore, the experiment of GPS does not match the SR predictions and the two frames would measure a different speed of light given this experiment. Here is a specific example. Assume two GPS satellites 3.9 km apart. When GPS1 is exactly vertical to a ground clock, it fires a laser at GPS2. λ = c/√( c² - v²) = √( 299,792.458² - 3.9²) = 1.0000000000846 The GPS frame say measures a t of 3.9/299,792.458 = 1.3009e-5 seconds. Now, back out the programming of the time dilation. But it rounds to 1.3009e-5 seconds because of the slow relative speed. For the earth frame, the ground clock 1 will determine the path length to be vt + d/λ So, vt + d/λ = 3.9*1.3009e-5 + 3.9/1.0000000000846 = 3.900051 km Obviously, the two path lengths are different. So, the speed of light in the earth frame is 3.900051/1.3009e-5 = 299796.3717 And 299796.3717 - 299,792.458 = 3.9137426397109693289261280651856km/s Which is basically the relative speed of the GPS clocks compared to the ground clocks.
swansont Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 1) I do not need to integrate when discussing SR and inertial motion.2) The frequency of a satellite is adjusted for many things, time dilation being one of them. And, no it does not accumululate as the distance grows in GPS, but it does with SR given t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ. Baloney. Time dilation accumulates with the path it is an accumulation of phase. If you do a clock comparison of identical clocks after T, you will have some amount of time dilation. If you do the comparison after 2T, the dilation will have doubled. Likewise, if you have two clocks running at different rates, more phase difference will accumulate the longer you wait. These two are equated in GPS, though there is also the gravitational term that is included.
vuquta Posted January 19, 2010 Author Posted January 19, 2010 Baloney. Time dilation accumulates with the path it is an accumulation of phase. If you do a clock comparison of identical clocks after T, you will have some amount of time dilation. If you do the comparison after 2T, the dilation will have doubled. Likewise, if you have two clocks running at different rates, more phase difference will accumulate the longer you wait. These two are equated in GPS, though there is also the gravitational term that is included. Yes, given a length of time, the time dilation accumulates. I did not say it does not. That is why in my example, I backed out the time dilation adjustment of the GPS satellite. I understood it accumulated while light traveled from GPS1 to GPS2. But, I did say integration is not required for inertial motion. So, we are in agreement that time dilation will apply for any elapsed time period from a moving frame to a stationary frame. But, GPS is missing the term (-vx/c²)λ and does not require it. So SR does not correctly predict the results of a widely known experiment.
swansont Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 Yes, given a length of time, the time dilation accumulates. I did not say it does not. Ummm... 1) I do not need to integrate when discussing SR and inertial motion.2) The frequency of a satellite is adjusted for many things, time dilation being one of them. And, no it does not accumululate as the distance grows in GPS, but it does with SR given t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ. That is why in my example, I backed out the time dilation adjustment of the GPS satellite. I understood it accumulated while light traveled from GPS1 to GPS2. But, I did say integration is not required for inertial motion. So, we are in agreement that time dilation will apply for any elapsed time period from a moving frame to a stationary frame. But, GPS is missing the term (-vx/c²)λ and does not require it. So SR does not correctly predict the results of a widely known experiment. No, it's not "missing" the term, because the clock rate is adjusted to compensate. If the clock rates were identical in the same coordinate system, then you would have to account for the time dilation. You do one or the other. You do not do both.
vuquta Posted January 19, 2010 Author Posted January 19, 2010 Originally Posted by vuquta Yes, given a length of time, the time dilation accumulates. I did not say it does not. Originally Posted by vuquta 1) I do not need to integrate when discussing SR and inertial motion. 2) The frequency of a satellite is adjusted for many things, time dilation being one of them. And, no it does not accumululate as the distance grows in GPS, but it does with SR given t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ. Ummm... Yes, I said time dilation does not accumulate based on the distance of the ground clock to the GPS clock. The distance does not matter. You are talking about an accumulated time dilation based on elapsed time. Looking at t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ t' = tλ - vxλ/c² So under the context, I grant the term tλ, and have been, but not -vxλ/c² which has an x which is the distance of the stationary observer to the moving clock. Full SR requires that the further the GPS satellite from the ground clock along the x-axis, the more out of sync of becomes. This is not supported by GPS and therefore, GPS invalidates full SR. No, it's not "missing" the term, because the clock rate is adjusted to compensate. If the clock rates were identical in the same coordinate system, then you would have to account for the time dilation. You do one or the other. You do not do both. Given t' = tλ - vxλ/c² The clock rate of a GPS is adjusted for tλ. Full SR requires the adjustment to include -vxλ/c². You will not find this adjustment in the paper I posted. Finally, since it does not include this adjustment, and you seem to agree with this that only time dilation applies, then I gave a specific example with GPS where the two frames would measure a different speed of light. So, light moves through space at one constant speed c, but the machinery of SR is incapable of correctly measuring it.
swansont Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 Yes, I said time dilation does not accumulate based on the distance of the ground clock to the GPS clock. The distance does not matter. You are talking about an accumulated time dilation based on elapsed time. No, not the position. The distance of travel. d = vt Looking at t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ t' = tλ - vxλ/c² So under the context, I grant the term tλ, and have been, but not -vxλ/c² which has an x which is the distance of the stationary observer to the moving clock. Full SR requires that the further the GPS satellite from the ground clock along the x-axis, the more out of sync of becomes. This is not supported by GPS and therefore, GPS invalidates full SR. No, you are applying an SR equation to a GR situation. x is the coordinate in the direction of motion. In this case, it's equivalent to r*theta, i.e. the distance traveled in the rotating coordinate system. Given t' = tλ - vxλ/c² The clock rate of a GPS is adjusted for tλ. Full SR requires the adjustment to include -vxλ/c². You will not find this adjustment in the paper I posted. That's because it's the wrong adjustment for the situation. You aren't applying the transforms correctly. tλ is not the adjustment made to the clock. — the phase isn't changed, the frequency is. Which means you accumulate dilation as you travel, i.e. as x becomes larger. Which is what vxλ/c² tells you.
vuquta Posted January 19, 2010 Author Posted January 19, 2010 No, not the position. The distance of travel. d = vt. No, you are applying an SR equation to a GR situation. x is the coordinate in the direction of motion. In this case, it's equivalent to r*theta, i.e. the distance traveled in the rotating coordinate system. There are two components to translating time in LT. t' = ( t - vx/c²)λ x is not the distance traveled of the object, it is a position in the stationary coordinates. So, I do not know what you are driving at here. That's because it's the wrong adjustment for the situation. You aren't applying the transforms correctly. tλ is not the adjustment made to the clock. — the phase isn't changed, the frequency is. Which means you accumulate dilation as you travel, i.e. as x becomes larger. Which is what vxλ/c² tells you. The frequency of the clock is changed because that is how time is measured. So the frequency of the satellite is programmed in orbit so that it will register at a frequency of 10.23 MHz. Five sources of relativistic effects contribute in Figure 2. The effects are emphasized for several different orbit radii of particular interest. For a low earth orbiter such as the Space Shuttle, the velocity is so great that slowing due to time dilation is the dominant effect, while for a GPS satellite clock, the gravitational blueshift is greater http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ Now, I see t' = tλ, where t is the satellite clock, so that t = t'/λ in the equations, but I do not see what you are proposing. Further, the term -vxλ/c² is not in them which is what I have been saying. And no, after the reprogramming on earth, they do not accumulate time dilation as they travel. And further, if you want to claim time dilation is accumulated based on relative motion travel when no adjustments are made, I am OK with that. But, the coordinate x has nothing to do with that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo! Why are you posting in my thread if I am so stupid? this is "Speculation"you do not need Math to speculate. OK. I am sorry if you thought I said you are stupid. That was not my intention.
vuquta Posted January 19, 2010 Author Posted January 19, 2010 I found a paper today that sees the same thing I see with GPS. (2) the speed of light is dependent on the receiver’s tranlational motion relative to the ECI frame if the source is stationary (although simultaneity is the key of GPS operations and the relativity of simultaneity of Special Relativity disagrees with the basic operational principle of GPS) The term -vxλ/c² is the relativity of simultaneity. Then his major conclusions is: From the calculations given before, we find that the speed of light in a reference frame moving relative to the ECI frame is c – v or c + v. http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/IAINpaper2000.pdf The problem with this conclusion he implies the speed of light is not a constant. He should have said the constant speed of light is measured c – v or c + v. This is similar to the error in SR. The speed of light is a constant but the measurement technique fails. So, light speed is not c + v and c - v. That represents our failure to measure it correctly.
Recommended Posts