|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi NoNukes,
Sorry about the neglect.
NoNukes writes: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html
quote: The third paragraph below the one you quoted says:
quote: Your source agrees with the source I presented. They both agree that unaffected by a external magnetic fields such as the gravity of earth the frequency will be 9,192,631,770 Hz.
NoNukes writes: ICANT writes: quote:emphasis mine. I would interpert that to say the closer to the earth the slower the frequency. I could be wrong. NoNukes writes: The clocks don't have to match. It is enough that we know the degree of mismatch. My little Tom Tom is not smart enought to figure out the differences from 4 or 5 different satellites. If it does not get the same time stamp from each GPS clock it will not be able to figure out where it is at on the ground. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Gravity alone will change the frequency. And if I am not mistaken temperature can also change the frequency. No, ICANT. Gravity cannot change the frequency. Nor can temperature. As for temperature, both it and humidity affect the apparatus and can disrupt a proper reading of the frequency measure (not the frequency itself but the apparatus reading the frequency). That is why these clocks are placed under controlled environmental conditions. As for gravity, again, ICANT, the point being made is that gravity does not affect the frequency of the cesium atoms. The appearent differences seen between reference frames is an actual difference in time itself. There is no absolute time. There is no favored frame of reference by which we can say a clock is slow or fast. There are only observed differences between frames. And since there can be no absolute special frame of reference by which to measure we cannot say that one frame's clock is right and another frame's clock is wrong. The cesium atom ticks at the same rate within a reference frame as it does within any other reference frame. Any observed difference we may see from outside the reference frame of the clock is due to time dilation.
I would interpert that to say the closer to the earth the slower the frequency. I could be wrong. You are. I see where NoNukes has already answered this. And I see where you then go on to say:
Your source agrees with the source I presented. They both agree that unaffected by a external magnetic fields such as the gravity of earth the frequency will be 9,192,631,770 Hz. If the extent of your most basic knowledge of reality is that gravity is a magnetic field then there is no hope in trying to explain reality to someone so massively screwed up. I'm done here. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
So according to that the satellite clocks are adjustable and are adjusted to keep the exact time the clock on earth does. And they have to do so by adjusting the definition of time. These numbers are way off, but they have to redefine an hour as taking 61 minutes instead of 60. This is because time moves more quickly for the satellites compared to an observer on the surface of the Earth. Even with this internal correction the time on the satellites has to be constantly reset by ground control. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Do you think these two things are equal?
Magnetic field Gravitation Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They both agree that unaffected by a external magnetic fields such as the gravity of earth the frequency will be 9,192,631,770 Hz. Gravity is not a magnetic field, and moreover - the clock in space and the clock on Earth both "tick" at 9.192 ghz. If you're standing by the clock on Earth, it's ticking at 9.192 ghz. If you're standing by the one in space, it's ticking at 9.192 ghz. But the one in space has to be "corrected" - adjusted - to match the one on Earth (where we live, and therefore where we would like to tell time) because on Earth seconds are longer than they are in orbit. This is because gravitational fields don't change the way clocks run, they change the way time runs.
If it does not get the same time stamp from each GPS clock it will not be able to figure out where it is at on the ground. It's actually the difference in times that your GPS uses to locate itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: Hi NoNukes, Sorry about the neglect. No apology necessary. You are busy.
ICANT writes: They both agree that unaffected by a external magnetic fields such as the gravity of earth the frequency will be 9,192,631,770 Hz. You've made a fundamental error here. Gravity is not a magnetic field. A reference that talks about the effect of magnetic fields does nothing to confirm an effect from gravitational fields. Thus your interpretation is wrong. The quote you provided says nothing about the effect of gravity. Magnetic fields affect cesium clocks because the clock is based on the energy difference between states of a cesium atom in a magnetic field. Stray magnetic fields interfere with the mechanism for detecting the characteristic frequency. Gravitational fields would not have the same affect. As per the source I provided, atomic clocks are shielded from magnetic fields and are maintained in a temperature controlled environment. So in their own frame of reference, they generate a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
My little Tom Tom is not smart enought to figure out the differences from 4 or 5 different satellites. If it does not get the same time stamp from each GPS clock it will not be able to figure out where it is at on the ground. ICANT, you cannot just make up facts. You have no idea what your li'l Tom Tom is capable of. And regardless of what you think the Tom Tom does, you've been shown multiple sources indicating that some relativity corrections are performed at the receiver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Here is yet another paper which discusses relativistic effects on clocks. It would be nice if you could provide some papers/data to support you. All you seem to do is cherry pick bits and pieces of data others provide to try and support your view, ignoring the rest of the evidence that you dont like. Taking things out of context in order to try and support your argument is ...well ineffective at best.
You have been provided a ton of data, in its full, not cherry picked. Can you do the same?? I would like to see specific evidence that gravity is the only effect that needs to be accounted for when dealing with gps, full paper, not something you quote mined. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fizz57102 Junior Member (Idle past 4006 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
From http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html:
quote: Actually the way I first heard it, there was a third camp of engineers who thought that the effect was in the opposite direction, so the clock module had three settings, with a +, 0 and - correction. From the same source, it seems that it is technically incorrect to say that GPS provides a continuous demonstration of gr:
quote: Edited by fizz57102, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
So I guess you dont believe in relativity either.
The question isn't whether the effects of relativity are negligible. The question is it real,and the answer is yes based on your evidence.
from your link writes: Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature. This system was intended primarily for navigation by military users having access to encrypted satellite transmissions which are not available to civilian users. Uncertainty of position determination in real time by using the Precise Positioning code is now about meters. Averaging over time and over many satellites reduces this uncertainty to the point where some users are currently interested in modelling many effects down to the millimeter level. Even without this impetus, the GPS provides a rich source of examples for the applications of the concepts of relativity. Thanks for more evidence to support my position. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2341 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
GPS and Relativity
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2341 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So I guess you dont believe in relativity either. I think by "not alone" he's referring to the engineers referred to in the quote, the ones who doubted that GR corrections would need to be made - not his own beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: I think by "not alone" he's referring to the engineers referred to in the quote, the ones who doubted that GR corrections would need to be made - not his own beliefs. That is certainly what was meant. But I think ICANT is essentially alone. He has a fairly unique denial pattern. ICANT does not agree with those engineers. ICANT believes that some kind of gravitational effect works on clocks to produce a slowing exactly at the rate predicted for gravitational time dilation. Those engineers in the article the would not have expected the effect ICANT acknowledges. Apparently ICANT does not accept the time dilation predicted by Special Relativity due to relative motion between frames. Although I haven't seen an explicit statement of that, he does reject the twin paradox as being a mere thought experiment, and he hasn't really addressed the relativistic mu-meson decay experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Apparently ICANT does not accept the time dilation predicted by Special Relativity due to relative motion between frames. ICANT don't believe time can be dilated. Dilated meaning streached or expanded. You can not streach time like you can bubble gum. Time is a concept of man. A concept can not be streached. An object can be streached or shortned. What kind of an object is time? So could you give me a definition of the time that you are streaching when you talk about time dilation? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
ICANT don't believe time can be dilated. Dilated meaning streached or expanded. You can not streach time like you can bubble gum.
Then what word should we use for the observed fact that time moves at different rates in different frames of reference?
So could you give me a definition of the time that you are streaching when you talk about time dilation? We could use the amount of time it takes for light to travel one meter. The oscillation of cesium has been mentioned before. Pretty much any physical interaction that depends on time would be applicable. For example, the rate at which iron is oxidized by free oxygen could be used. The rate at which a specific pendulum swings.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024