Existence

Even if the gravitational field were the same at Bolder and Greenwich and at every place along the travel path, the clocks would not agree. Yet each clock would accurately reflect the time duration experienced by the respective clock. The 'moving' clock does not measure the duration 'wrong'. If you accompanied either clock, you would age according to the clock you accompanied rather than according to the clock. That's simply not correct ICANT.Your posts indicate that you have no understanding of the implications of general or special relativity. If your argument relies on this issue, and I don't know that to be the case, then you lose. Perhaps you should drop this line of argument and move on to another point.

You are missing the point that both clocks are to be started while in Greenwich. Go back and read the Straggler's proposed experiment.The tick rates would not match during the transportation of one clock to Boulder due to special relativity effects. The motion of the clock during transport would cause the tick rate during transport to be different from that of the clock remaining in Greenwich.If you were in a vehicle with the transported clock, you would age at a rate consistent with the clock in that vehicle. I don't dispute either quote. Neither one is relevant to the point I say you are wrong about. And your words regarding the elevation of Boulder are not relevant either. I specifically said that I was describing effects that occur regardless of differences in elevation. I quote myself below. And in fact, you seem to be mistaken regarding what issue I said you were wrong about. Let me present my correction of you in context. Clearly, I said that you are wrong when you say that the difference in tick rates due to special or general relativity means that one clock or the other is giving a false measurements of duration. The sources that you've quoted do not address that point. Thus they are irrelevant.You can identify time dilation effects in some situations. You have no clue what the significance of those effects really is. Time dilation has nothing to do with clocks not properly measuring duration. Time dilation effects clocks, biological processes, and everything else that is a function of time duration in exactly the same way because time dilation effects time itself.

Why even bring up his sons' degrees?Curt Renshaw is a relativity denier. See the quote below from the same paper. (My emphasis added.)

quote:

---

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 slowed down because time itself slowed down.

---

It should be clear that Curt a) claims that the time dilation effects are not due to relativity, and b) acknowledges that relativity does indeed predict that time is effected. But Curt denies that special relativity is real and accepts some contrary explanation for time dilation.Further, I also note from the paper that Curt acknowledges the difficulty in explaining the time dilation effect in the famous muon experiment, that pretty much conclusively shows that time and not just clocks are effected. He has only potential proposed explanations that appear to me to be nonsense.But given your own arguments, you aren't denying relativity are you? If not then you don't agree with Renshaw's conclusion. Only if you are also denying relativity do we need to actually pick apart Curt's work.As to your second point... This second source does not agree with Curt. They are using relativity and not whatever bonehead substitute Curt is using. None of us here disagree with anything in the above quote.

This appears to be true, but the clock corrections predicted by either method are the same. How does that bust my bubble?

How do you explain dilation effects that occur because of constant relative motion between frames, i.e. from special relativity? That cannot be a gravitational effect. It would occur in a uniform gravitational field or in the absence of any gravitational field.How do you explain that gravitational time dilation affects other processes in exactly the same rate? All types of clocks and all processes show exactly the same effect including clocks that don't rely on atomic vibrations. For example, atomic decay rates show the same effect.

This is just wrong. Perhaps you are reading Flandern as saying this.The effects of GR and SR are well known as are the orbits of the satellites. The corrections could, in theory, be applied in any of a number of ways. You cannot tell the difference between SR and LR in this way. The theories would provide equivalent corrections.By the way, the GPS clocks are not completely in synch. At least some of the relativistic calculations are made at the receiver. Some of the relativistic effects vary with time.Relativity in the Global Positioning System

quote:

---

The net correction for clock offset due to relativistic effects that vary in time is

​

[ equation removed ]

​

This correction must be made by the receiver; it is a correction to the coordinate time as transmitted by the satellite. For a satellite of eccentricity , the maximum size of this term is about 23 ns. The correction is needed because of a combination of effects on the satellite clock due to gravitational frequency shift and second-order Doppler shift, which vary due to orbit eccentricity.

---

In fact, the GPS clocks were not originally synchronized by taking into account the GR effects:

quote:

---

After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

---

Perhaps you should rethink your interpretation of Flandern's article.Another problem with your gravity 'slows the tick rate' theory is the equivalence principle. A clock accelerating at the rate of acceleration due to gravity in Boulder in empty space would experience the same tick rate as the clock in Boulder. So gravity cannot be the cause of clock slowing. This is complete nonsense. The Sagnac effect depends on the location of the GPS receiver, and thus, the correction cannot be performed at the satellite clock. The Sagnac effect is smaller than other relativistic corrections.

Yes, that's right. I did err on that point.Edited by NoNukes, : yyy

So called theory eh?Actually given the controversial nature of the theory, and the fact that theory is over 90 years old, Einstein's contemporaries might not be the best people to quote. Some of Einstein's contemporaries doubts may well have been well founded. The math was difficult to follow, and the experimental validation, limited. Even Eddington's eclipse observations could have been questioned.You don't have those same reasons to doubt Einstein these days. The predictions of general relativity have been subjected to numerous test since back in the day. Eddington's experiment has been repeated numerous times. Pari Spolter??? You've got to be kidding. Her book is pure nonsense. It's absolutely hilarious that you would cite her book.Here's an excerpt from a debate between Pari Spolter and Paulo Correa regarding some physics from "Gravitational Force of the Sun". Note Spolter's opinion of Newton's work...http://www.aetherometry.com/...of_Science/spolter_debate.php

quote:

---

Also, please note that there is no acceleration in Newton's Universal Law. Students are taught in one session that

​

F = ma (Newton's second law of motion)

​

and in a later session that

​

F = (GMm/r2) (Newton's law of universal gravitation).

​

These two equations are not dimensionally consistent. Furthermore there is no explanation in the textbooks why we need two different equations for FORCE.

---

Here's a bit from here response to Correa's rebuttal

quote:

---

I regret that the Correas and David Pratt have chosen to ignore considerable evidence presented in my book to show that gravitational force is independent of mass.

---

I'm not going to quote Correa's rebuttal, but the above is completely laughable. If you don't understand why, I recommend you read the rebuttal for yourself.From a book review that includes the quote you provided.Challenging Einstein - A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Mathematical and Scientific Forensic

quote:

---

Pari further remarks that Einstein's general theory of relativity does not explain:

​

(1) the rotation of the celestial bodies
(2) the orientation of the axis of rotation of the planets
(3) the orbital planes of all the planets approximately on the solar equatorial plane (12?)
(4) the inclination of the plane of the orbit of each planet
(5) the direction of movement of the planets (counterclockwise) as viewed from north)
(6) the distance law (Titius-Bode)
(7) the eccentricities
(8) the regression of the nodes
(9) the precision of the equinoxes
(10) the perturbations

---

Really? No theory of gravity will explain items 1-7. Newton's theory is good enough to explain 8-10 (assuming "precision" really means "precession") which means Einstein's theory does as well.Einstein's theory also does not predict the date Easter falls on each year or explain why Pluto is not a planet. So maybe we should dump it. Not.You are not alone, ICANT. But you haven't cited great company. You probably should have stuck with Flandern or some other proponent of LET.

I note that ICANT is no longer responding to my posts. That's not a problem and in fact is quite reasonable. ICANT has plenty of other detractors to respond to.Nonetheless, it is pretty easy to demonstrate that ICANT is wrong. The magnetic field does not have the effect he claims.Earth's magnetic field is not a simple function of distance from the earth. It's strength varies with longitude and latitude both on the surface of the earth and in space around the earth, even at constant distance from earth. So, the fact that the clock rate could be influenced by magnetism does not produce the result that "the closer to the earth the slower the frequency" as ICANT suggests. In reality, the cesium clocks are shielded from the influence of magnetism.http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

quote:

---

This frequency is electronically divided down and used in a feedback control circuit ("servo-loop") to keep a quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 megahertz (MHz), which is the actual output of the clock, along with a one-pulse-per-second signal. The entire apparatus is shielded from external magnetic fields.

---

The CS atom generates a frequency of 9,192,631,770 per second. To determine time using this frequency, the CS frequency is divided down to something easier to work with (e.g. 5 or 10 Megahertz [Mhz]). We determine the time by counting those subdivided pulses. One way of correcting the clock is to include a frequency synthesizing circuit in the divider to compensate for general relativity effects. Obviously, this correction method can only work for constant, pre-known relativisitic effects. Counting the cycles gives us the time.It is merely necessary to add or subtract from the count in order to correct the time. What is not done is adjusting the frequency generated by the cesium atoms. In fact every attempt is made to keep that frequency constant. The temperature is maintained at a constant value.Of course that gravity is not being manipulated to synchronize the clocks. Nobody knows how to do that. The clocks don't have to match. It is enough that we know the degree of mismatch. As someone has already explained, what is done currently is that the clocks are periodically synchronized. For that reason it is no longer easy to measure the relativistic effects by analyzing the satellite clocks. Some additional correction for relativistic effects is done at the receiver. For example, the Sagnac-Effect varies with receiver position and must be performed at the receiver.For those who are fascinated by relativity denial, Conservapedia has an article full of such rantings. The author seems to think relativity is some kind of liberal plot.http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

quote:

---

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world

---

The article includes a list of 35 easily debunkable reasons why Andy Schlafly thinks Einstein is a fraud.From 'Counterexamples to Relativity' footnotes.

quote:

---

Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.

---

No apology necessary. You are busy. 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. 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.

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.

,Yes, of course.You believe that gravity slows a cesium atom clock by exact amount to match the time dilation effect predicted by GR. But you seem to deny that relative motion has an effect on clocks or time. Is that correct?So what's your explanation for the observed longer half-life of muons traveling at velocities approaching the speed of light relative to the observer?As best I can tell your position on GR is that gravity produces an effect is on clocks but not time, while your position on SR is complete denial of any effect at all. I think that is a fairly unique combination.

ICANT, you have said several times that gravity affects the clock rate of a cesium clock. Here's one example from message 245 : Here's a second example from message 166 A third example: Your own words indicate that you believe that the gravitational field is the cause of the clock rate changes. I'm baffled as to why you are denying that now? Good. Now explain how relative motion effects the frequency of a cesium atomic clock or any other process such as radioactive decay, or the time it takes light to travel one meter as observed in a different reference frame. You cannot possibly blame that on gravity or magnetism.I'd also ask that you respond to one of us with your explanation of the mu-meson experiment that has been cited several times. You appear to be ducking the question. Edited by NoNukes, : Add tag.

By exactly the amount predicted by GR for gravitational time dilation which makes the prediction without considering the structure of the clock in any way. Isn't that a bit peculiar?So you believe that says nothing about what happens if gravity is increased rather than being reduced? How do you not understand that you are claiming that gravity can increase or decrease the clock rate by increasing or decreasing the force on the atoms. Is there something special about the force of gravity at sea level?Once the clock in orbit is synchronized with the earth bound clock, what do you claim happens to its clock rate if the orbital clock is returned to earth without further adjustment, ICANT? Haven't we discussed a similar scenario with clocks in Boulder and Greenwich?I note that you have again ignored the SR portion of my post. I assume that your refusal to consider the effects of special relativity on your argument are deliberate.

A vanishingly small percentage of the people on earth can follow the math underlying general relativity.Cavediver already warned about the frustration of arguing university/graduate level physics with someone who either does not grasp or rejects concepts from high school physics. You'll probably feel better about yourself if you stop posting before you start into the name calling.The only reason GR is even an issue in this thread is because ICANT has said that it undermines his position re existence.