Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims


Paul B. Andersen wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Why were you so mean in a former message?

"Don't be such a blatant idiot.
Shut up and read!
Isn't that obvious even to you?"

I could say the same about you, but I won't.

Luttgens wrote:

"If the ground clocks and the satellite clocks emit the same frequency
Nu1, the received signal from the satellite clocks will be Nu2<>Nu1,
unless the satellites clocks are "adjusted *once* pre-launch for the
predicted relativity effects" (leaving aside small periodic
adjustments).
Then Nu2=Nu1, an quasi-permanent equality.

The classical explanation is indeed that "the satellite clocks speed up

because they are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and slow
down because they are moving faster than objects on the Earth's
surface". One could as well consider that the moving clocks and
the Earth clocks keep ticking at the same rate, but the frequency of
the signals emitted by the satellite clocks are *observed* to be
blue-shifted by a gain of potential energy, and red-shifted by the
longer path travelled by the signal when observed from Earth.

The pre-launch adjustment of the frequency of the satellite signals
cancel the net effect for the Earth observer."

I add now:

In
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ae85e2e4bbfc4f9b?as_umsgid=ancvr4$cg3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul B. Andersen claimed:

GR predicts the GPS clock will run fast by 38 us/day,
*partly due to the difference in gravitational potential
(fast by 45 us/day), and partly due to the different speeds
(slow by 7 us/day.)*

I wholly agree!

Paul B. Andersen:

"You are rather confused.

The (1+4.4647*10^-10) frequency shift is NOT what is observed by
a stationary observer on the ground. If you measure the frequency
of the received signal from a satellite passing over your head,
this signal will be blue shifted by ca.(1+5*10^-7) as it rises above
the horizon, and will be red shifted by ca.(1-5*10^-7) right before it
goes below the horizon on the other side. Due to this Doppler shift
which is a thousand times bigger than the relativistic effect, it
is practically impossible to measure the latter by frequency
measurements on the ground."

My comment:

You are introducing a red herring!

Luttgens:

I am not confused, contrary to you.
The 4.4647*10^-10 shift (not (1+4.4647*10^-10) is what is corrected by
the orbiting clock adjustment.
Otherwise the shift would lead to significative errors in the GPS
localizations.

Paul B. Andersen:

"Don't be such a blatant idiot. Think while you are reading.
Due to the relativistic effects the frequency is shifted by
the factor (1+4.4647*10^-10) regardless of what the emitted
frequency is."

My comment:

You are again sidestepping the point. Of course, the factor
apply to any emitted frequency.

"The GR explanation IS that the clocks are ticking at the same proper,
intrinsic rate as the ground clocks (we are still talking about
unadjusted
clocks).

But when YOU say:

the orbiting clocks keep ticking at the same rate as the ground
clocks",
I interpret it to mean that the clocks really ticks out the same amount

of time per orbit, but that the frequency is _observed_ to be increased

when it is measured from the ground."

My comment:

Yes, that's what I meant.

"This is wrong by two different reasons:

1. It is a _fact_ that the satellite clock advances more
than the ground clock per orbit, and that the difference
is t_satelite/t_ground = (1+4.4647*10^-10)".

My comment:

The unadjusted clocks are *observed* to advance more than the ground
clock (I don't see why you said "by orbit").

"2. It is a blatant self-contradiction.
If the satellite clock ticks N+n cycles per orbit,
and every tick is observed from the ground, and
the ground clock ticks N cycles per orbit, then
the observed frequency shift must be (N+n)/N.
Isn't that obvious even to you?
There is no way both clocks can tick out the same
number of ticks per orbit, and that a frequency shift
can still be observed."

My comment:

The key word is "observed".
Both clocks tick at the same rate, but the frequency of the
orbiting clock is *observed* to be shifted partly "by the difference
in gravitational potential (fast by 45 us/day), and partly due
to the different speeds (slow by 7 us/day.)" (cf. paul B. Andersen
himself).

Thak you for responding to my "thought experiment":

Let's assume that GPS clocks can be put instantaneously into their
GPS orbits or brought back to Earth from those orbits.

1) Two GPS clocks A and B are synchronized on Earth. Clock B
is sent to its orbit at time 0 and brought back to Earth
after 1 day (you can use 86163 s or 86400 s).
What will be then the time difference between clocks A and B,
assuming that the only effect on clock B is due to the difference
in gravitational potential and its orbital velocity.

You said, 38.5 us. I agree that this is the GR prediction.
Mine is that no time difference would be observed.

2) Just before launch, the frequency of GPS clock B is adjusted
downward by 4.4647 parts in 10^10 relatively to clock A.
After 1 day, clock B is brought back to Earth.
What will be then the time difference between clocks A and B,
assuming that the only effect on clock B is due to the difference
in gravitational potential and its orbital velocity.

You said 0 us. This is again a GR prediction.

Imo, the "adjusted" orbiting clock and the ground clock are *observed*
to tick at the same rate, but once clock B is brought back to Earth,
its frequency would still be smaller by 4.4647 parts in 10^10
than the frequency of the ground clock, meaning that the time
difference
between clocks A and B would be 38.5 us.

Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... > clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light ... IRT does not assume that all clocks are running at the same intrinsic rate. ... > Only from the point of view of an observer at rest with respect to these ... >>both observers are at equal distance from the strikes. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... > clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light ... IRT does not assume that all clocks are running at the same intrinsic rate. ... > Only from the point of view of an observer at rest with respect to these ... >>both observers are at equal distance from the strikes. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Light Postulate Invalidated
    ... > disprove the basis of SR (aka Einstein's light postulate). ... > frame A's clocks at the given points). ... What method do you use to synchronize the clocks? ... > Eis an inertial observer, and entity Eis a light ray. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast