Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

Another thing, it doesn't matter what prelaunch adjustments you make to
the orbiting clocks, once the clocks go into orbit, they are traveling at
different velocities relative to each other and relative to the ground.
So, how do they stay in synch without further synchronization if relative velocity
between the clocks is a cause of "time dilation" in the clocks?



So the time dilation in the clocks has nothing to do with SR.

Velocity cannot affect clock rates that have their detectors in the
same inertial frame. The only cause for differences in ticks would be if different parts inside the clock gained a different amount of velocity (energy) . In this case, they would not be in inertial frames.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Can we really say that a factor of 1+10^-10 can be measured within 1% accuracy given that the total slowing of the clock is caused by a whole set of factors? What method is used to differentiate between all effects?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes because the frequency is good to a part in 10^14, and there are only two factors that have any effect at all on clcok rates: speed and potential.

If we had any doubt about how to separate speed and potential (which we don't because all theories agree), we could do it by comparing contributions to satellites at other altitudes. For example, GLONASS (Russian) satellites have a larger speed contribution and a smaller potential contribution. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />how can one use the fact that clocks run fast as proof that
it runs slow?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See my answer to Jan about how the two effects can be separated.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">it doesn't matter what prelaunch adjustments you make to the orbiting clocks, once the clocks go into orbit, they are traveling at different velocities relative to each other and relative to the ground. So, how do they stay in synch without further synchronization if relative velocity between the clocks is a cause of "time dilation" in the clocks?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure which of several questions you are asking here. The prelaunch adjustment slows the clock so that, when it speeds up in orbit, it will end up at the same rate as a ground clock. Because the orbits are so circular, the relative speeds of all satellites with respect to the ECI frame are the same, so the speed correction is nearly the same for all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So the time dilation in the clocks has nothing to do with SR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no such thing as "time dilation" in reality. We observe clock slowing, which is indistinguishable from SR's time dilation in the GPS system.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Velocity cannot affect clock rates that have their detectors in the same inertial frame. The only cause for differences in ticks would be if different parts inside the clock gained a different amount of velocity (energy). In this case, they would not be in inertial frames.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">GPS has no case where receivers are in the same frame as the satellites. The rest of your objection seems to deny the existence of atomic clocks. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]I'm not sure which of several questions you are asking here. The prelaunch adjustment slows the clock so that, when it speeds up in orbit, it will end up at the same rate as a ground clock. Because the orbits are so circular, the relative speeds of all satellites with respect to the ECI frame are the same, so the speed correction is nearly the same for all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[123] Aren't the ground clocks located in the U.S.? So, the orbital clocks would have different velocities relative to the ground clocks. The orbital clocks themselves have different velocities relative to one another. So why don't the orbital clocks fall out of synch?

[TVF] GPS has no case where receivers are in the same frame as the satellites. The rest of your objection seems to deny the existence of atomic clocks. -|Tom|-

I wasn't referring to receivers. I meant detectors of the Cesium
atoms inside the Cesium clock assembly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Aren't the ground clocks located in the U.S.?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In general, no. Only one of the Monitor Station clocks is in the U.S. The idea was to have global coverage.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the orbital clocks would have different velocities relative to the ground clocks. The orbital clocks themselves have different velocities relative to one another. So why don't the orbital clocks fall out of synch?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We need two answers here -- one for how GPS is actually operated, which uses LR instead of SR; and the other for how it could be operated using pure SR.

Actual GPS takes each satellite clock and each ground clock on the rotating Earth and synchronizes each one to an imaginary, instantaneously co-located clock in the Earth-centered inertial (ECI) frame. Then none of the imaginary clocks have any relative motion. This obviously requires that the ECI frame is a preferred frame in the LR sense, and the result is a form of "universal time" as provided for in LR. None of this seems relevant to the present discussion because LR has no time dilation or length contraction or any lack of remote simultaneity or events occuring in other frames "now" from the past or future.

Hypothetical GPS using pure SR would need to use Einstein clock synchronization for each satellite-receiver pair and develop a set of clock corrections for that pair at that moment. Those corrections would change with time (because both satellites and receivers are accelerating) and would be different for each satellite-receiver pair (because they are all in different inertial frames). But it would restore measures of the speed of light to a constant value (because the clock readings are set to do just that), and would enable the Lorentz transformations to work both ways (because one is always comparing just an instantaneous situation, which is like the linear motion between any two inertial frames). Doing things this way would make GPS impractical and unuseful, but is possible in principle. So GPS cannot claim that it proves SR wrong. -|Tom|-

Ok, thx for the response. I think we are going in circles now
but no big deal.