Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.


"bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Xns96A3EACB1B701WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
> news:eo7oe1tnaq82d7b5p37mk6mb3mup11cmfs@xxxxxxx:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:25:13 +0000 (UTC), bz
> > <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
> >>news:9rhhe19rbqfe14p2d7pudumoo9fj8aauck@xxxxxxx:
> >>
> >>> GR apparetly has a theory about why clocks should change rates when in
> >>> different gravity potentials.
> >>> I want a relativist to tell me exactly what that theory is.
> >>
> >>I am not a relativist.
> >>I have been looking for the relationship and I think it goes something
> >>like this:
> >>dt1/dt2 = sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r1))/sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r2))
> >>
> >>I can tell you that from another formula, [solve the force from masses
> >>formula for, assuming the masses involved are the mass of the earth g]
> >>the 'g' force at the altitude for a geosync satellites is about 0.023g.
> >>The g force at GPS satellite altitude is about 0.057g.
> >>
> >
> > I don't want the formula for GR redshift...
> >
> > I want a description IN WORDS.
>
> The description in words?
> Einstein described it: Mass distorts 'space-time'.
'space-time' the magic place where Maxwell radiates.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
The more the mass, the
> greater the distortion.
Yes that is how the blue lines on the paper are described.
>
> > What reason does GR give for the fact that clock rates appear to
> > physically increase but don't?
>
> Comparing clocks, from a location with one level of curvature, to a
> location with a different amount of curvature, will show you that the
> clocks measure 'something' at different rates.
If you have clocks that will interact properly with the blue lines
that should be true.
>
> If you move with the clock,
That will get foot prints on the paper.
> every tool you carry with you will undergo the
> same change [or no change, it depends on how you look at it]. You will be
> unable to tell that anything has changed [and 'really' it hasn't changed
> because you can't tell that anything has changed unless you look outside
> your FoR, or someone outside looks in.]
I have doubts. Could we test your theory by walking on polar or
grid paper before buying the special space-time paper?

>
>
> > (when viewed by either the original observer in the original frame or an
> > observer who remains with the clock during launch).
>
> Every tool the observer who remains with the clock can carry with him,
> every tool that only allows him to look within his FoR, will show that the
> clock has not changed.
Have you defined how each of these tools interacts with the blue lines.
I think Einstein only defined for light-clocks and measuring rods.
>
> If he is NOT allowed to look at things outside his FoR, the clock has not
> changed.
Can you exerpt that part:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
>
> Even if he looks, it doesn't change the clock. He does see that the clock
> isn't running at the same rate when he compares it to something outside his
> FoR.
>
> You can say the clock 'physically changes' if you want, but by every
> measure from within its FoR it has not changed, so your statement is wrong.
You can say:
<< a general Lorentz transformation preserves the volume of space-time.
Since time is dilated by a factor in a moving frame, the volume of
space-time can only be preserved if the volume of ordinary 3-space is
reduced by the same factor. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node14.html
>
> But the clock is definitly running at a different rate, when seen from
> outside, so YOU figure out what words you want to use to describe it.

<< It is clear that in the particle's rest frame. Thus, corresponds to the
time difference between two neighbouring events on the particle's
world-line, as measured by a clock attached to the particle (hence,
the name ``proper time''). According to Eq. (2.78), the particle's clock
appears to run slow, by a factor , in an inertial frame in which the particle
is moving with velocity . This is the celebrated time dilation effect. >>

Now return to:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html

There were two ways given how we could define clocks in this
*imaginary* space where Maxwell radiates. Neither were right,
wrong, realistic or unrealistic. We could have used a different
well know set of ruled in *designing* the space and legitimately
call it Hilbert space.

>
> Just make sure that your words match with what has been observed and what
> is observable.
Neither of you (Bz and Henri) have defined the interaction of your clocks
with either a general Lorentz transformation or a standard Lorentz transformation
so they are neither observables nor some you can derive rules for.

>
> You can not observe that the clock 'has changed physically' because anytime
> you take it back to where it started from and test it against any standard
> you like, you will find it is still running at the same rate it was running
> before you moved it.

Clocks in *space-time* (the place where Maxwell radiates) have no
physical existence to change.

<< If a given situation in electromagnetism is attributed to a
scalar potential ( x,t ) and a vector potential A( x ,t ), the physically meaningful and unique
electric and magnetic fields E( x,t ) and B( x,t ) are determined from the potentials according to
eq(1.1)
Here we are using Gaussian units and considering phenomena in vacuum or as microscopic fields
with localized sources. The expressions (1.1) are constituted so that they satisfy the
homogeneous Maxwell equations automatically. Since the gradient of a scalar function has zero
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Sue...



>
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Post 2. Facts and Rules for SR Transforms!
    ... > A change in frame is an act by man, ... a change in frame indicates that the observer is moving at a ... > the same clock time. ... > tree that was present, and this real living tree was ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the ... in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make ... This means that the rate of the LET observer's clock is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... > seen in A' and B's frame of reference.Since this would specify the ... > and B as well,it therefore it must also be the time when the light pulse ... > observer B ... >> M' bounces a signal off the clock at A' and times its return. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... A LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the rest frame of the ... in the rest frame of the ether, but an arbitrary observer doesn't make ... This means that the rate of the LET observer's clock is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >absolute motion of the observer is higher than that of the observed frame. ... The ether frame clock has the fastest clock rate by ...
    (sci.physics)