Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest.
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Define a clock"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Define a clock"
- In reply to: John Polasek: "Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest."
- Next in thread: John C. Polasek: "Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest."
- Reply: John C. Polasek: "Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:01:25 GMT
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:13:36 GMT, John Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:43:01 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:17:56 GMT, John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Because observed clock rates suffer a loss due to the Lorentz
>>>transform of (approx.) v^2/2*c^2, and the relative v has doubled so
>>>the discrepancy is multiplied by 4.
>>
>>What about the square root?
>>(Actually I don't believe it slows at all)
>Maybe this will help: 1 - sqrt(1-x^2) = x^2/2 for small x.
So does SR only work if v<<c?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Define a clock"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Define a clock"
- In reply to: John Polasek: "Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest."
- Next in thread: John C. Polasek: "Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest."
- Reply: John C. Polasek: "Re: The GPS GR Correction, put to Rest."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]