Personal Topic

[Moronium]

So how much faster would a satellite's clock in interstellar space run in relation to one in freefall within our gravitiational field? If the answer is significant, then I'd believe you. But if the answer is indistinguishable, then all the gravitational contribution to age difference as opposed to reciprocal time dilation only applies to the earthbound clocks. The gravitational component is age difference as opposed to time dilation because it is the same from all perspectives and it doesn't depend on valid spacetime paths. See where I'm going with this? I don't think anyone in the history of this planet ever asked this question before so you won't find the answer in wikipedia.

 

There would be a point in outer space where the gravitational effect on a clock would be minimal or non-existent.  At that point the time rate difference would depend solely on the difference in speed.

 

In the GPS the opposing effects caused by the increased speed of the satellites versus their increased distance from the earth's center of gravity are largely offsetting, but not entirely.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I'm not asking for guesses. I too think it would be non-existent and hence the argument that the gravity field around the satellites has almost 0 relevance to the effect of gravity on their on-board clocks. The GPS time therefore has two separate components: gravity effect on earth clocks which is a permanent age difference effect and time dilation from our perspective of the satellites' relative velocity which, because they feel no force of acceleration or gravity and because there are no valid spacetime paths between them and us, does not result in permanent age difference from all perspectives, only time dilation from our perspective. Now I know your brain has redacted everything you don't understand or don't agree with in the above paragraph so your next statement will probably also be irrelevant to this discussion which again is the differences between ageing, time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference. Please prove me wrong. Please tell me you're going to ask a question of clarification on what I just said.

 

You can't just lump all these separate time phenomena under a one size fits all banner of "time retardation" and put a bunch of clocks in a corner with dunce caps on their heads.

Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

because they feel no force of acceleration or gravity and because there are no valid spacetime paths between them and us, does not result in permanent age difference from all perspectives, only time dilation from our perspective.

 

 

This is wrong.  The "lost" time is permanent.  Length contraction is temporary, and disappears when the increased speed stops.  But not time differences.

 

A moving clock will return showing less elapsed time, and it will not "reset" itself on arrival.

 

There is no warranted distinction between a clock and aging.  In the twin paradox, the travelling twin does not immediately revert to his earth twin's age when he gets back.

 

Your two "becauses" do not cause anything related to clock retardation or biological aging.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

So how much faster would a satellite's clock in interstellar space run in relation to one in freefall within our gravitiational field?

I have no idea, not much.

 

If the answer is significant, then I'd believe you. But if the answer is indistinguishable, then all the gravitational contribution to age difference as opposed to reciprocal time dilation only applies to the earthbound clocks.

Er, how can a difference in clock rate matter to one clock more than the other? It's the same difference.

 

The gravitational component is age difference as opposed to time dilation because it is the same from all perspectives and it doesn't depend on valid spacetime paths.

Yes.

 

See where I'm going with this?

No.

 

I don't think anyone in the history of this planet ever asked this question before...

Seriously?

 

...so you won't find the answer in wikipedia.

I never look up answers. That's cheating! Unless it's answers to some specific value of something.

Edited January 23, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

As long as there is this persistent inability to understand the difference between time dilation and age difference, there can be no points made here.  There is a time diff between the GPS clocks and the earth clocks. Where does this time diff come from? Because if it comes from GR gravity, that's a different answer than if it comes from time dilation and another different answer if it comes from the doppler shift ratio, and another answer if it comes from whatever causes permanent age difference WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TIME DILATION!!! Age difference isn't even a rate of time.

 

So my point is, there are 2 components to consider, the effect of gravity on earth clocks slows them in relation to the satellites' clocks and then the time dilation  (which does not result in permanent age difference) of the satellites' relative velocity slows their clocks from our perspective. Watch the video the admin posted at the top of page 5 and it says how much each component contributes to the combined time difference between our clocks and the satellite clocks. Spoiler alert, the gravity component wins.

Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Moronium do you have a thread dedicated to your ideas because I think we should go there and discuss your point of view further. Just show me where it is, go there and wait for me and I'll be there very soon.

Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Moronium do you have a thread dedicated to your ideas because I think we should go there and discuss your point of view further. Just show me where it is, go there and wait for me and I'll be there very soon.

 

 

No, I don't although I have ended up discussing these ideas, which, btw, are not "mine," in a great number of threads on this forum.  I'll take a minute and try to find you the first thread I posted at this forum, hold on....

 

Here ya go:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/

Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

As long as there is this persistent inability to understand the difference between time dilation and age difference, there can be no points made here.  There is a time diff between the GPS clocks and the earth clocks. Where does this time diff come from? Because if it comes from GR gravity, that's a different answer than if it comes from time dilation and another different answer if it comes from the doppler shift ratio, and another answer if it comes from whatever causes permanent age difference WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TIME DILATION!!! Age difference isn't even a rate of time.

 

So my point is, there are 2 components to consider, the effect of gravity on earth clocks slows them in relation to the satellites' clocks and then the time dilation  (which does not result in permanent age difference) of the satellites' relative velocity slows their clocks from our perspective. Watch the video the admin posted at the top of page 5 and it says how much each component contributes to the combined time difference between our clocks and the satellite clocks. Spoiler alert, the gravity component wins.

Then what exactly is your point? You've already got your answer, the gravity difference between the surface of the Earth and the orbital distance of the satellites cause the satellite clocks to run faster than ours.

[ralfcis]

At the start I said

 "It'd be nice to know the specifics of how GPS calculations are done at this level even though it won't answer my question of whether the gravity caused by a non-inertial turnaround causes age difference."

 

The point is there are many ways to arrive at clock difference and this was just an exploration of what phenomena cause the GPS clock differences. The answer seems to be gravity only affects the earth clocks and not the satellite clocks plus it's just plain old time dilation of the satellite clocks due to relative velocity from our perspective to arrive at clock difference. I's possible two causes could also be working in the twin paradox despite there being contradictions to that analysis. I won't get an answer to that question unless I find an expert.

Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The answer seems to be gravity only affects the earth clocks and not the satellite clocks 

  

 

No, this is not correct.  Gravity does affect the clocks on satellites, but it does not slow them down as much as it does clocks on the surface of the earth.  The same could be said of a clock on a mountaintop.

 

In order to predict the net difference in rates of clocks on satellites versus those on earth's surface, both the gravitational and the speed effects must be taken into account.  In the GPS, they are nearly offsetting, but not perfectly so, to the clocks do not run at the same rate.

[Moronium]

The way they synchronize the clocks is rather ingenious.  All clocks are synchronized to the hypothetical "master clock" at the center of the earth, which is deemed to have the "correct" time.

 

If they predict that the satellite clock will end up running one second slow per minute, they simply recalibrate it before blast off.  In that case they would set it so that 59 seconds will display one minute as passing.  Then it is in complete agreement with the "master clock" and remains so indefinitely.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You just said this at 2:56:

 

"There would be a point in outer space where the gravitational effect on a clock would be minimal or non-existent."

 

You are just mixing up your terms in a giant slosh bucket where you can't even identify the ingredients in that bucket. You're also redacting everything I write and then saying some of the same things I am but not being aware of that. 

 

I hope terrorists never disable that master clock at the center of the universe, no wait, at the center of the earth. Truth is the accuracy of atomic clocks is not that they all start out with the same time, it's that they all tick off time at the same rate. This is one thing I've found relativists not able to understand. They look at Einstein's clock sync method as gospel and it's completely not needed. The accuracy of atomic clocks is universal and Einstein's postulate that the physics is the same within all frames guarantees their accuracy. Using light pulses to sync distributed clocks is so 19th century. Atomic clocks are time microscopes and bring relativistic effects into view even at everyday speeds.

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

At the start I said

 "It'd be nice to know the specifics of how GPS calculations are done at this level even though it won't answer my question of whether the gravity caused by a non-inertial turnaround causes age difference."

 

The point is there are many ways to arrive at clock difference and this was just an exploration of what phenomena cause the GPS clock differences. The answer seems to be gravity only affects the earth clocks and not the satellite clocks plus it's just plain old time dilation of the satellite clocks due to relative velocity from our perspective to arrive at clock difference. I's possible two causes could also be working in the twin paradox despite there being contradictions to that analysis. I won't get an answer to that question unless I find an expert.

Answer to what? Stop being so bloody vague all the time and you might actually get an answer. You keep saying your questions aren't being answered but you're not actually asking anything. If you want an answer then ask a fukcing question!

 

The twin paradox is very simple, I'll alter it slightly to show you how it works. The two twins accelerate away from Earth in opposite directions and then stop accelerating so that they are both now inertial and in motion relative to each other. Each one is time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of the other and this will be our starting point.

 

Now, if twin A accelerates into twin B's frame then twin A will be younger (twin B's watch will overtake theirs before reaching twin B's frame) but if twin B instead accelerates into twin A's frame then twin B will be younger (twin A's watch will overtake theirs before reaching twin A's frame).

 

If they instead accelerate back to Earth's frame then they'll be the same age and younger than a triplet who stayed on Earth.

[Moronium]

Insofar as SR goes, it is worth noting that the clocks on satellites are not programmed to "see" earth clocks as running slower than their own, as SR would require.  On the contrary they see (acknowledge) the earth clock as running faster than theirs, not slower.  They realize that it is "their" clock that is slower, because they realize that they are the one moving (faster), not the earth clock.

 

This is all built into the "recalibration" that I mentioned.

 

Put another way, they reject the idea that clock retardation is "reciprocal," because it is not.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Woo hoo, I just noticed I'm ranked as an advanced member after only 3 weeks. If the lynch mobs on other forums see this, they'll be major pissed. I can't even tell them because my IP is blocked by those forums.

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Wow two completely wrong answers in a row. Wal as I said you can't see the question because your brain is redacting it as an unrecognizable mash of words. I've stated it many times. Just go to my STD and answer the questions I asked. That's the price of admission. It's a language test.

Edited January 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

No, I don't although I have ended up discussing these ideas, which, btw, are not "mine," in a great number of threads on this forum.

 

To elaborate:

 

These "ideas" were formulated by brilliant physicists such as Lorentz and Poincare prior to 1900, and they have been espoused by other brilliant physicists ever since.  They are not *my* ideas.