Re: The real twin paradox.

On Nov 27, 1:22 am, colp <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:57 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:





colp says...

On Nov 27, 4:17 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
colp says...

On Nov 25, 5:50 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
No, you haven't. As I said, you have to look at
what relativity *actually* predicts, not your
own distorted version of relativity.

What do you think the difference is between my version of relativity
and your version of relativity?

The biggest single difference is that you seem to believe
that time dilation is a relationship between two *clocks*. It
isn't. It's a relationship between *one* clock and *one*
inertial coordinate system. You CANNOT apply the time dilation
formula to compare distant accelerated clocks.

Wrong. Time dilation between two clocks has to be corrected for with
GPS sattelites.

No, that's wrong. You don't know what you are talking about.

For GPS calculations, what's important is not special relativity,
but General Relativity.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion
relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their
clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture).
Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the
satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7
microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the
time dilation effect of their relative motion.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

The GPS SVs are at about 20,000 km. If a similar clock was at
35,786 km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
....it would only have to be corrected for the the so-called
gravitational redshift. That would add a lot of clarity
to that part of the launch preset.

7us per day may be beyond the stability of the clocks used
considering the measurement is really just from launch pad
to station and the response is difficult to separate from
the Sagnac effect.


http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/articlese3.html#x6-30003
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/


I am not aware of any calculations that that involve a
real geostationary clock but they could contribute a
lot of confidence in the 7us component if they exist.

Sue...





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clock synch
    ... reaching the Earth's surface as being proof of time dilation. ... Muons aren't clocks and your accelerator observations are the same ... Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity ... Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation Test
    ... This includes time dilation due to the earth's rotation ... > their flying clocks with a stationary one in Denver. ... and gravitation when comparing clocks accurately. ... Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... time dilation of relativity, except perhaps to say they are real ... these facts are relative to the frame of reference. ... It seems not so clear when we turn to rates of clocks, ... he is experiencing time dilation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... that has been known about clocks for centuries. ... and not based on atomic clocks, confirms so-called time dilation? ... Theories make *quantitative* predictions. ... special relativity, and the collection of these experiments also serve ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (Third Proof)
    ... dilation, according to General Relativity. ... Velocity and acceleration are two completely different things, ... corner his idiot theory of Special Relativity in less than twenty lines ... Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)