Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

<i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Doesn't Einstein synchronization assume both the orbiting and
Earth clock to be in the same inertial frame so the clocks all run
at the same rate?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[TVF] No. Einstein synchronization is used to synchronize any two clocks to ensure that the speed of light will be measured as c in all frames. That is not an experimental or testable result, but a postulate that must be enforced.

[123] Yes but the process itself doesn't say anything about the
time dilation of the Cesium clocks, does it? You are merely bouncing light from one clock to another then using the time that light travels those distances as the time for the clocks.

That is to say, with or without Einstein synchronization, the
Cesium clocks count a different number of ticks in orbit than on
the ground. This fact alone contradicts the equivalence principle in GR and the first postulate in SR. The Cesium clocks are measuring time in their own frame, so if the number of ticks is a law of physics in an inertial frame such as that of a self-contained Cesium clock, the law of physics is not the same in different inertial frames.

I guess these are the two points I'm making:

1. The Cesium clocks are self-contained systems so that they can be
considered inertial frames.
2. If 1 is true, and they are measuring time in their own frame (counting
ticks in their frame), then all Cesium clocks should measure the same number
of ticks, no matter where they are in space nor how fast they are traveling
wrt each other. That is, you can't measure time dilation in your own frame since everything is time dilated by the same amount.

<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 />That is to say, with or without Einstein synchronization, the
Cesium clocks count a different number of ticks in orbit than on
the ground.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We were trying to avoid complicating this discussion of SR by bringing in GR. Naturally, a clock on a mountain has more cesium transitions per second than a clock at the base, even though both clocks are in the same inertial frame. (If the mountain is at the north pole, the frame will be truly inertial.)

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of potential and pretend that satellites orbit due to rocket thrust around an Earth with no gravitational potential field? Or do you wish to switch the discussion to GR and the potential effect on clocks?

For the moment, I'll assume the former and answer in the context of speeds being the only effect on clocks we need to consider.

In that case, then Einstein synchronization precludes adjusting clock rates before launch, and the satellite clock will see the ground clock ticking slower while the ground clock sees the satellite clock ticking slower. After one orbit, both clocks will agree that the satellite clock lost time. And both will attribute that to the satellite clock spending time in other inertial frames during its orbit.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Cesium clocks are measuring time in their own frame, so if the number of ticks is a law of physics in an inertial frame such as that of a self-contained Cesium clock, the law of physics is not the same in different inertial frames.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The laws of physics are the same. In SR, all inertial frames are equally valid. However, when looking from <i>any</i> inertial frame into <i>any</i> other, time in the other frame is experienced differently in the first frame than its own time.

Nothing would be different about other frames if we jumped into them. But our experience of other frames is that time for them in the "right now" for us consists of past, present, and future events.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. If 1 is true, and they are measuring time in their own frame (counting ticks in their frame), then all Cesium clocks should measure the same number of ticks, no matter where they are in space nor how fast they are traveling wrt each other. That is, you can't measure time dilation in your own frame since everything is time dilated by the same amount.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can two cesium clocks, one in each of two frames, possibly tell whether they measure the same number of ticks when each frame thinks the other frame is right now experiencing past and future events? So the apparent length of a tick in another frame is a fluid thing because, whichever tick is associated with the present, the other tick must be associated with some moment in the past or future, which changes the interval.

To understand SR, you <i>must</i> get rid of any trace of simultaneity between two frames. SR has no remote simultaneity between frames. If I move at speed v relative to you, at the moment we pass, we will disagree about what time it is right now in Istanbul, and neither of us has the better claim. -|Tom|-

Shouldn't the number of transitions a Cesium clock
counts be invariant if we assumed everything in the
clock to be in the same frame? It's like the
speed of light is c in all equivalent frames? Time
dilation is only observed of a frame that is different
from the observer frame. Since the "observer" in
the Cesium clock is the detector, it is observing time
in its own frame so no time dilation can be observed.
The number of transitions in a Cesium clock should be
invariant.

Since the number of transitions is not invariant, it
would seem to invalidate both SR and GR.

<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 />Shouldn't the number of transitions a Cesium clock
counts be invariant if we assumed everything in the
clock to be in the same frame?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The number of transitions I see in a clock in my own frame will be different from the number of transitions that a moving observer will see in my clock.

One clock, two different measurements, depending on which frame they are made from.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's like the speed of light is c in all equivalent frames? Time dilation is only observed of a frame that is different from the observer frame. Since the "observer" in the Cesium clock is the detector, it is observing time in its own frame so no time dilation can be observed. The number of transitions in a Cesium clock should be invariant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The measure of its rate is not invariant across frames.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since the number of transitions is not invariant, it would seem to invalidate both SR and GR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is nothing intrinsically contradictory about concluding that the measurement depends on the state of relative motion of the observer and the observed. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

<i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Shouldn't the number of transitions a Cesium clock
counts be invariant if we assumed everything in the
clock to be in the same frame?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[TVF]The number of transitions I see in a clock in my own frame will be different from the number of transitions that a moving observer will see in my clock.

One clock, two different measurements, depending on which frame they are made from.

[123] Yes but if we assumed the parts of the clock are all moving at the same rate, they are at rest with each other. So the detector of the transitions in the clock is measuring transitions in its own rest frame and not the transitions of a moving frame. Thus, all Cesium clocks should measure the same number of transitions.