Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: "Ockham" <my@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:27:43 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:l2d675-gfp.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Jeckyl
| <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:28:28 +1100
| <13q0kaft9d71l47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > "Ockham" <my@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:SAXnj.14454$3m6.7071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >>
| >> "snapdragon31" <snapdragon31@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >>
news:dc482e20-b4df-43ff-a84e-70909a0b93b2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >> On Jan 29, 8:54 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >>> On Jan 29, 8:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| >>>
| >>> > According to relativists, GPS clocks GAIN 38us per day on the ground
| >>> > clock.
| >>> > That is due to two components, 45us for gravity and -7us for
relative
| >>> > speed.
| >>>
| >>> > Accordingly, an observer (OO) in GPS orbit would see the GC LOSING
52us
| >>> > per
| >>> > day.
| >>>
| >>> > After one year, the OO would calculate that the OC was about 19ms
ahead
| >>> > of the
| >>> > GC.
| >>> > However, the GO would calculate that his GC was only 13ms behind.
| >>>
| >>> > What happens when the clocks are reunited?
| >>> > Who is right?
| >>>
| >>> Two people drive different routes from city A to
| >>> city B. When they are reunited, one odometer reads
| >>> 220 km and the other reads 230 km. Which one is
| >>> right?
| >>>
| >>> - Randy
| >>
| >> | According to relativity, both odometer readings are wrong. They do
| >> | not represent the true distance of the routes travelled because of
the
| >> | length contraction effect.
| >> | According to Newton's law, both odometer readings are right.
| >>
| >> | The GPS clock paradox is a variation of the twin paradox, so no valid
| >> | solution.
| >>
| >> The paradox resides in the third postulate.
| >
| > Androcles .. we've told you .. there is no third postulate
|
| Yes there is; it's not usually expressed as a postulate, but
| it is a simple one:
|
| - If a TWLS be conducted between a source and a moving mirror,
| then the time taken (as observed by the source) of the
| light beam from source to mirror and back to source is
| exactly twice that of the time taken from source to
| mirror. In other words, t_AB = t_BA.
Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.
That's how doppler radar works.
Since c1 = lamba1 * f outbound and c2 = lambda2 * f inbound
it follows that c1 <> c2.
|
| There's no elegant method by which to verify this postulate
| experimentally,
Doppler radar is very elegant. It falsifies the postulate which is why
there is no elegant way to verify it.
|
| Besides, as Ockham should well know by now, if the light
| goes c+v in one direction and c-v in the other,
That's just plain silly, the car doesn't change direction.
the radar goes at 0+c leaving the gun and returns at v-c.
| the average
| speed thereby is less than c because of a variant of the
| "headwind/tailwind" effect; the MMX was designed to measure
| that effect (and failed to show any variance).
Non sequitur, GPS doesn't use average speed.
| Also, various other measurable effects are well-documented.
Non sequitur, Ptolemy's epicycles are well-documented (and wrong).
| For example, SR postulates changes in wavelength and frequency;
| Newton merely postulates changes in frequency.
Nope. Newton postulates NO change in frequency.
c1 = lambda1 * f
c2 = lambda2 * f
| It is all paradoxical, to be sure -- but there's no real contradiction.
Assertion carries no weight.
|
| >
| >> 'the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals
| >> the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' -- Albert Einstein
| >>
| >> The time for a signal to get from the satellite to the receiver
| >> does not equal the time for an uplink because the satellite has
| >> moved, obviously.
| >
| > Indeed .. SR and Einstein agrees with that.
Nope. In SR the uplink time is the same as the signal time.
| > Time from A to B for light is
| > only the same as the time from B to A when A and B both at rest in some
| > frame of reference (ie they are not moving relative to each other)
| >
|
| B does not have to be at rest. Of course the actual time
| at which the ray of light impacts B (and the position
| of B at the point of impact) might be a little hard to
| specify unless one has an alternate "infinite speed"
| particle, which is currently (and probably forever will
| be) impossible.
You have elegant way of verifying it, but there are many
elegant ways to falsify it, of which doppler is the easiest.
Bigotry is not elegant.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- References:
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: Ockham
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- Prev by Date: "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
- Next by Date: Re: The Reason for Time Dilation
- Previous by thread: Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- Next by thread: Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
