Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
List 'em.
Oh, and no comment on the lifetime of muons? No comment on the velocity portion of the GPS clock correction? No proposed mechanism by which the frequency of cesium transitions is changed by a variation in the gravitation field without chnging the rate of passage of time?
All in due time here is the things you asked for as a message I was preparing for you. So I will add it to this post.
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
The only way for the clock to run faster is for time to run faster on the satellite.
Are you sure?
JonF writes:
That's the only thing that can affect the frequency of cesium transitions.
Then how do they adjust the frequency to sync the satellite atomic clock's to the stationary earth atomic clock's?
Which is done once each day.
JonF writes:
Gravity itself does not.
Then why go on to tell me how gravity does affect the atomic clock?
JonF writes:
If you think that putting cesium atoms in a lower gravitation field changes their transition rate without affecting the rate of time's passage feel free to propose a coherent, detailed, mathematically founded theory that explains that and all the other thousands of observations that have verified GR. Similarly explain the velocity effect. Until then we'll stick with the only viable explanation that we've got.
I am not that smart to propose a theory but how about this
one
In this article you will find:
Velocity and motion does effect the total energy of the clock system.
It just doesn't work when the clocks are on the satellites.
Clocks constructed on earth run at a certain rate. If flown eastbound they slow down. Westbound they speed up.
Time remain unaffected and that simply changing the ratio of energy of the clock to that of its environment causes the slowing.
The twins in the Twin Paradox end up the same age.
Our only experience with measuring the lifetime of muons comes from measuring their decay at or near the surface of the Earth.
We have an around-the-world clocks experiment currently in progress, the Global Positioning Satellite System
The GPS clocks are pre-corrected for their motion relative to a hypothetical earth centered clock prior to launch.
We have satellites in circular orbits. One orbit is geo-synchronous, while the other is polar. That means at a lot of the time satellites are going in the opposite direction. Which presents no problem because after launch they are keeping synchronous time as anticipated.
That is not what relativity says will happen. You will need to look at the article and see figure 5.
But now let us consider the special relativistic view on a clock to clock basis, not reflecting through the hypothetical earth center frame. In the figure, we first consider clocks in position 1 and 2. These two clocks at the instant shown have no relative velocity with respect to each other, and they can be considered to reside momentarily in the same inertial reference frame. Special relativity predicts that these two clocks will be synchronous, which of course, they are.
Now consider clocks 2 and 3. At this point in the orbits, these two clocks momentarily have a relative velocity of 2rw, as they are moving opposite one another. A signal received by one of these clocks sent from the other should be dilated by the Lorentz factor for this velocity. Similarly, clocks 4 and 5 have a relative velocity of (2r2w2)1/2. Signals passed beween these two clocks should experience the Lorentz factor for this relative velocity. Special relativity is very specific on the effects of time as seen between any two relatively moving observers without necessitating a transfer through a real or imagined third reference frame.
Thus even though the GPS clocks are able to be synchronized using the so-called special relativistic time dilation formula as referred through the center-of-earth frame, once in their actual orbits the pre-correction should not work consistently regarding signals passed between any two relatively moving clocks. That the system does work is due to the fact that the clocks slow for reasons addressed in this paper, and not due to the Lorentz time dilation formula. This indicates that, while the equations of special relativity produce correct results to a large variety of problems to which they are applied, there is something fundamentally wrong with the underlying assumptions that were used to develop those equations and with their assumed realm of validity of application.
It seems relativity is not able to do what many claim it can do.
Most importantly, however, it must be stressed again that time itself has not slowed down. Only the arbitrary units of measure with which we choose to mark time have slowed, whether atomic processes, frequency changes or molecular reactions. The distinction is important. In the relativistic model, clocks slow down because time itself slows down. No "mechanical" description is provided as to why the clocks slow, and, if it were, the effect would be additive. Quentin Smith has argued at length and quite successfully in Language and Time from a philosophical standpoint that "metaphysical time is the only time in the actual world and that it is the only time in any possible world in which there is time."
As I said the clock slows down time does not slow down.
Just a crazy question I have. If the duration of a second is determined by dividing up the duration of a rotation of the earth on it axis, wouldn't the earth have to slow down to make time slow down for the satellite clock?
But for the earth bound clock it would have to remain steady.
We do have to add leap seconds to the atomic clocks because the earth's rotation is slowing down.
Conclusions of the paper.
We have seen in this paper how the results of experiments may be interpreted in terms of special relativity or in a Galilean framework of energy differentials. In the case of pulsar timing algorithms, the state of the art does not yet allow a conclusive decision as to a preference for special relativity over other approaches, except to note that the algorithms used, very complex in design and application, do not consider the effects of actual motion between the earth and the pulsar. The GPS system, a very elaborate Hafele-Keating experiment, uses the same hypothesis concerning hypothetical third reference frames as used in the original experiment and in pulsar timing algorithms. In this case, however, it is demonstrated quite clearly that transforming through a hypothetical third frame can not compensate adequately for the directly observable relative motion between any two GPS clocks, and the system should not work if interpreted in terms of special
relativity.
JonF writes:
The fact that you don't like GR and its implications is not evidence that GR is wrong. Your unsupported assertions are not evidence that GR is wrong.
Whether I like or dislike GR has nothing to do with it being right or wrong. It doesn't make any difference what I think. It is either right or it is wrong. There are things that are wrong.
Your assertions don't make it right either.
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."
™ Version 4.2