Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

Tom,

What is the typical value of the gamma factor used for GPS?

A simple explanation might be that the Cesium atoms are traveling at
a higher absolute velocity in the orbiting clocks. The Cesium atoms
gained more potential energy as it is moved into orbit, lowering
its boiling point and increasing its kinetic energy, resulting in
a higher velocity towards the detector in the clock. Am I way off here?

<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 />What is the typical value of the gamma factor used for GPS?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">1+10^-10. It is observable because atomic clocks approach a part in 10^14 precision. Hydrogen masers are an order of magnitude better than that.

<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 />The observer is not peering into any other inertial frame!!!- it is measuring time in its own frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then there is no need for a theory of relativity, because everything it describes refers to views from one frame into another frame looking at clocks or objects with a relative motion. Within any one frame, no relativistic effects can be seen.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An inertial frame is like the photo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not in SR, it isn't. When we look at an inertial frame other than our own, we see past, present, and future (the time slippage effect). A photo shows a single instant of time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Adding and subtracting velocity to inertial frames is like blowing up or shrinking the photo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That deals only with the change in clock rates, which is indeed like a change of scale. However, the "time slippage" effect is nothing at all like a change of scale. Refer to the Lorentz time transformation. It has two terms, one for clock slowing (t/gamma) and one for time slippage (vx/c^2). The second term dominates except at x = 0 (the observer's own location).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "photo" in our consideration is that of a Cesium clock. Each part of the clock is in the same "photo". Let us focus then on the part of the clock relevant to the discussion: the detector of the Cesium atom transitions. Should it or should it not measure the
same number of transitions whether the "photo" is "enlarged" or
"shrunken"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In SR, it should not.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Just as in the case of the rulers always reading 2 inches regardless of "frame", the "ruler" in Cesium clocks should always "read" 9,192,631,770 transitions, irrespective of its velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bad description. That should have read "9,192,631,770 transitions <i>per second</i>". But the length of a second is different in another frame, and we see some transitions in the past and some in the future. So the counts of transitions in a frame other than our own are meaningless without a theory to interpret them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is a consequence of the postulate of physics being invariant in all inertial frames.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Physics within the observer's own frame is invariant. Physics in frames with a relative motion is very different unless the observer transfers into that other frame.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Time dilation has nothing to do with this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Both time dilation and time slippage only manifest themselves in frames with a relative motion, never in the frame the observer resides in.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thus, any "corrections" of the orbiting clock attributed to SR is absurd. SR does not predict time dilation of the clock
in orbit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And the fact that SR's "non-prediction" of 7200 ns/day for GPS clocks is correct to within 1% or so is just a coincidence?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple explanation might be that the Cesium atoms are traveling at a higher absolute velocity in the orbiting clocks. The Cesium atoms gained more potential energy as it is moved into orbit, lowering its boiling point and increasing its kinetic energy, resulting in a higher velocity towards the detector in the clock. Am I way off here?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The simplest explanation is the one we have in LR. The speed of electromagnetic waves and atomic clock transitions varies with the density of the medium those waves must propagate in. Higher speeds result in encountering more medium per second, which increases the effective medium density and slows the wave propagation by known amounts given by the laws of refraction. This is quantitatively and qualitatively the right behavior. -|Tom|-

Tom,

The gamma factor you just quoted is extremely small. 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?

<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 /><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 />The observer is not peering into any other inertial frame!!!- it is measuring time in its own frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then there is no need for a theory of relativity, because everything it describes refers to views from one frame into another frame looking at clocks or objects with a relative motion. Within any one frame, no relativistic effects can be seen.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An inertial frame is like the photo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not in SR, it isn't. When we look at an inertial frame other than our own, we see past, present, and future (the time slippage effect). A photo shows a single instant of time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Adding and subtracting velocity to inertial frames is like blowing up or shrinking the photo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That deals only with the change in clock rates, which is indeed like a change of scale. However, the "time slippage" effect is nothing at all like a change of scale. Refer to the Lorentz time transformation. It has two terms, one for clock slowing (t/gamma) and one for time slippage (vx/c^2). The second term dominates except at x = 0 (the observer's own location).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "photo" in our consideration is that of a Cesium clock. Each part of the clock is in the same "photo". Let us focus then on the part of the clock relevant to the discussion: the detector of the Cesium atom transitions. Should it or should it not measure the
same number of transitions whether the "photo" is "enlarged" or
"shrunken"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In SR, it should not.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Just as in the case of the rulers always reading 2 inches regardless of "frame", the "ruler" in Cesium clocks should always "read" 9,192,631,770 transitions, irrespective of its velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bad description. That should have read "9,192,631,770 transitions <i>per second</i>". But the length of a second is different in another frame, and we see some transitions in the past and some in the future. So the counts of transitions in a frame other than our own are meaningless without a theory to interpret them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is a consequence of the postulate of physics being invariant in all inertial frames.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Physics within the observer's own frame is invariant. Physics in frames with a relative motion is very different unless the observer transfers into that other frame.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Time dilation has nothing to do with this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Both time dilation and time slippage only manifest themselves in frames with a relative motion, never in the frame the observer resides in.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thus, any "corrections" of the orbiting clock attributed to SR is absurd. SR does not predict time dilation of the clock
in orbit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And the fact that SR's "non-prediction" of 7200 ns/day for GPS clocks is correct to within 1% or so is just a coincidence?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A simple explanation might be that the Cesium atoms are traveling at a higher absolute velocity in the orbiting clocks. The Cesium atoms gained more potential energy as it is moved into orbit, lowering its boiling point and increasing its kinetic energy, resulting in a higher velocity towards the detector in the clock. Am I way off here?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The simplest explanation is the one we have in LR. The speed of electromagnetic waves and atomic clock transitions varies with the density of the medium those waves must propagate in. Higher speeds result in encountering more medium per second, which increases the effective medium density and slows the wave propagation by known amounts given by the laws of refraction. This is quantitatively and qualitatively the right behavior. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The clock runs fast, not slow. There is no evidence of any clock
running slow due to its velocity so the effect cannot be attributed
to SR in any shape or form. To test for time dilation due to velocity, you would have to compare clock rates at the same
potential that are moving relative to each other. That means comparing the clock rates between the orbital clocks at different
velocities and not between the clock on the Earth with the one in orbit. You are repeating what in my opinion is a big lie that
SR effects are corrected for in the GPS.

I mean, how does one even interpret time dilation that has opposing effects? Velocity causes the clock to go into the future but the gravitational potential brings it back to the past? What? So the clock is a time traveling machine? What?

SR wouldn't have predicted time dilation for Cesium clocks at
different velocities as I argued above. But setting that aside,
how can one use the fact that clocks run fast as proof that
it runs slow?