Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

Jan, If you adjust the Earth bound clock then you have messed up the 24 hour day. And what would that do to the month and year? We have to maintain the year-right?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Jan, If you adjust the Earth bound clock then you have messed up the 24 hour day. And what would that do to the month and year? We have to maintain the year-right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Jim, I see what you are getting at, and I agree, we would have messed up the day. But what I'm getting at is non-trivial: we are allowed, according to SR, to bias the clock rates of both clocks while they are still in the hangar due to symmetry in SR.

The most confusing part of SR is that it really depends on who is looking. So, we choose to look from the earth clock (EC), and without bias, we physically see the orbiting clock (OC) accumulate less transitions. When we decide to bring the OC back to the hangar, the OC should really display less transitions compared to the EC. However, back in the hangar, the OC claims that the EC really accumulated less transitions. We are in trouble.

It seems that SR is workable as long as we do not bring the clocks back together and "hard" compare the display readings. Using SR, we can account for clock slowing when we look through the eyes of one observer all the time. SR can't be used to predict which clock accumulated less transitions when they are reunited.

And how does one add time dilation effects together? Assume gravity when
calculating time dilation due to GR then assume no gravity when calculating
time dilation due to SR? The future + the past = the present? This is too silly.

<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 />And how does one add time dilation effects together? Assume gravity when
calculating time dilation due to GR then assume no gravity when calculating
time dilation due to SR? The future + the past = the present? This is too silly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that one just tackles the clock slowing separately. First calculcate the effect of GR, where the uniform motion of the orbiting clock does not effect the result, provided the potential does not change while it is moving. If the potential does change, then we need to know how the potential is changing as a function of the orbit. Finally, we incorporate the moving component of the slowing, which is independent of GR. Anyway, no matter how I look at the problem, it just seems that to incorporate SR into the GPS looks clunky to any degree.

We'd better use some model identification techniques often used in control engineering, so that we don't need to know the slowing process exactly. By doing so, we eliminate the need to contort and abuse the theories.

My point is there is nothing that indicates the clocks are running at a different rate. The correction is made on one clock to adjust for redshift not a clock problem at all(I know TVF has proven the clocks are running at a different rate). The redshift can be compensated for by any number of methods and GPS just picked the way they have for reasons known to who ever made the call at the time the system was designed. There is no reason for any one to believe cesium atoms emit photons at a different frequency when the atoms are in motion no matter who says this the case. Where is the data? There is none. It is more comical than silly-the original design may have been done to confuse everyone and thereby making it harder to copy for security reasons. It was during the cold war and GPS was designed for military use.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />My point is there is nothing that indicates the clocks are running at a different rate. The correction is made on one clock to adjust for redshift not a clock problem at all(I know TVF has proven the clocks are running at a different rate). The redshift can be compensated for by any number of methods and GPS just picked the way they have for reasons known to who ever made the call at the time the system was designed. There is no reason for any one to believe cesium atoms emit photons at a different frequency when the atoms are in motion no matter who says this the case. Where is the data? There is none. It is more comical than silly-the original design may have been done to confuse everyone and thereby making it harder to copy for security reasons. It was during the cold war and GPS was designed for military use.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


The clocks in orbit are supposed to run faster, meaning more transitions are counted per second. Since the microwave
frequency is calibrated by the number of transitions detected
in 1 second, more transitions would mean a higher frequency
in the microwave radiation, or a blueshift.

Less transitions counted would result in a redshift. And this
shifting in frequency would probably (in my guess) not be considered
a Doppler effect if the frequency is dependent on the number
of Cesium atoms counted and not the velocity of the Cesium
atoms wrt the microwave radiation.

But maybe someone more familiar with how Cesium clocks operate
can clarify.