Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Pete]

No, if you chose the center of the Earth as your reference point, the Earth can still be rotating as that would not matter.

The point of assuming a non-rotating Earth is so that the Earth-surface clock's rest frame is an SR inertial frame, and in the same frame as the Earth-centre clock.

If a third clock (Earth-frame-satellite path) is at rest in this frame and is positioned somewhere on the path of the satellite, then these three clocks (the Earth-frame clocks) are all synchronized, right?

And it's easy to see that the satellite clock runs slower than the Earth-frame-satellite-path clock in all frames, right? Including the satellite frame?

Do you agree with this so far? If so, then it's a simple step to move on to a rotating Earth.

 

[MacM]

The point of assuming a non-rotating Earth is so that the Earth-surface clock's rest frame is an SR inertial frame, and in the same frame as the Earth-centre clock.

They are not assuming a non-rotating earth. It has nothing to do with some inertial SRT frame. The ECI is a locally absolute referance for orbit veloicty and could care less if the earth exists. The veloicty compensation done in that frame of orbit veloicty only.

If a third clock (Earth-frame-satellite path) is at rest in this frame and is positioned somewhere on the path of the satellite, then these three clocks (the Earth-frame clocks) are all synchronized, right?

What? Care to elaborate.

 

[MacM]

No shit, Sherlock. Do the maths, and you'll find that SR predicts that in all frames, the Earth surface clock runs faster than the satellite clock.

If you mean regards velocity affect. Remember the orbiting clock is prelaunch calibrated to run slower by 38us/day due to GR affects.

BTW why haven't any staunch members here addressed the fact that the earth, orbiting satellite, etc are all encompassed in the sun's gravity potential and there are no changes in tick rate on a dinural or annual basis even though the clock moves in and out of the suns gravity potential.

 

[KitNyx]

Thank you for the link and I understand what is meant by reciprocity (which is an outdated, nonsensical term, sort of like centrifical force). What I do not understand is how all of you are using it. It seems to be bounced around like some sort of physics commandment. I do not understand why the all important relevance. Perhaps I am missing something, please advise.

- KitNyx

 

[Pete]

If you mean regards velocity affect. Remember the orbiting clock is prelaunch calibrated to run slower by 38us/day due to GR affects.

Yes, that's correct. My converstaion with Aer and James is specifically about the predicitions of Special Relativity. It is my opinion that SR does not predict that Earth clocks would run slower than satellite clocks in the satellite frame - or more generally that "reciprocity" is not a prediction of SR for clocks with unchanging or periodical separation between them; that the tick-ratio of the two clocks is not frame dependent.

BTW why haven't any staunch members here addressed the fact that the earth, orbiting satellite, etc are all encompassed in the sun's gravity potential and there are no changes in tick rate on a dinural or annual basis even though the clock moves in and out of the suns gravity potential.

Do you think that the Relativity model predicts that the tick ratio of satellite and Earth clocks should change as the Earth-Sun distance changes?
By how much?

 

[Aer]

The point of assuming a non-rotating Earth is so that the Earth-surface clock's rest frame is an SR inertial frame, and in the same frame as the Earth-centre clock.

That is precisely the point. The Earth does rotate. The surface clock is not an inertial frame even if you assume it so.

GPS assumes the idea of an absolute velocity whether you realize it or not and this absolute velocity is with respect to some local ether. Those who designed the system have given other labels to it. The local ether theory was a term coined (as far as I know) by the independent researcher who confirmed that GPS does utilize the idea of an ether. It is refered to as "local ether" because it is proposed that massive bodies create an ether around them as well as a gravitational potential. I have refered to each as one in the same as I suspect if local ether theory is correct, that there is a fundamental link between the two.

Now as for a non-rotating Earth. This assumption makes an object in a constant orbit around the Sun. Furthermore, I would suspect that the frame of the Sun is also taken as non-rotational and related to how it moves through the center of mass of the nearest 500-600 stars (I presume). I am paraphrasing from the bowels of my memory so everything might not be factually correct but I believe I've expressed the concept accurately.

 

[KitNyx]

"BTW why haven't any staunch members here addressed the fact that the earth, orbiting satellite, etc are all encompassed in the sun's gravity potential and there are no changes in tick rate on a dinural or annual basis even though the clock moves in and out of the suns gravity potential."

Probably because none of the staunch members here understand what you are talking about. "moving in and out of the suns gravity potential"? What are you talking about? Not to mention that it sounds as if someone here is actually expounding support for the existance of an ether. Support for that - I definitely want a link to.

- KitNyx

 

[Pete]

Thank you for the link and I understand what is meant by reciprocity (which is an outdated, nonsensical term, sort of like centrifical force). What I do not understand is how all of you are using it. It seems to be bounced around like some sort of physics commandment. I do not understand why the all important relevance. Perhaps I am missing something, please advise.

- KitNyx

Hi KitNyx,
As far as I can tell, by "reciprocity" means "If clock B is dilated by factor x in clock A's rest frame, then clock A is dilated by factor x in clock B's rest frame."

I don't like the term and always try to qualify it if I'm replying to a poster that uses it.

 

[KitNyx]

That is exactly what reciprocity means. It is the label given to an effect. It is not an effect in itself or the cause of an effect. Why or How are people using as such?

- KitNyx

 

[Aer]

Thank you for the link and I understand what is meant by reciprocity (which is an outdated, nonsensical term, sort of like centrifical force).

I tend to agree that it is nonsensical. However, the idea is still advocated and required in special relativity. How exactly do you say it is outdated? Has it been declared somewhere by someone that we are not free to chose either of any two given inertial frames as rest frames? If so, which is the rest frame and which is not and why?

 

[KitNyx]

It is a term coined with Euclidean geometry which is rarely used anymore in relativistic math. Ahh, not entirely true, but I think mainly for the same reason that "centrifical force" is not used anymore.

- KitNyx

 

[Pete]

That is precisely the point. The Earth does rotate. The surface clock is not an inertial frame even if you assume it so.

That's correct, like I said.

Do you remember the point that I'm actually talking about?

I think that SR predicts that in all frames, the Earth surface clock runs faster than the satellite clock.

I think I've made it pretty obvious that this is true for a non-rotating Earth, and I think it's a trivial step to proceed to the real case of a rotating Earth.

So, do you agree with the first part?
For a non-rotating Earth, do you agree that SR predicts that in all frames, the Earth-surface clock runs faster than the satellite clock?

If so, then we'll examine the case of a rotating Earth.
If not, then point out what you disagree with in the reasoning I gave.

Now as for a non-rotating Earth. This assumption makes an object in a constant orbit around the Sun. Furthermore, I would suspect that the frame of the Sun is also taken as non-rotational and related to how it moves through the center of mass of the nearest 500-600 stars (I presume). I am paraphrasing from the bowels of my memory so everything might not be factually correct but I believe I've expressed the concept accurately.

I think that the motion of Earth around the Sun, galaxy, and through the Universe can be treated as inertial for the purpose of GPS calculations, yes?
If not, then by what factor do you think it would affect the results?

 

[Aer]

It is a term coined with Euclidean geometry which is rarely used anymore in relativistic math. Ahh, not entirely true, but I think mainly for the same reason that "centrifical force" is not used anymore.

You need not assume any type of geometry. There is no implied meaning other than if one frame was assumed at rest, then the reciprical situation would be the other frame at rest. I do not see what is so confusing about the concept or the terminology. The terminology is the only thing that makes perfect sense.

Perhaps you have a problem with the word "reciprical".

 

[KitNyx]

Oh, and I am not saying the idea or observations for which "reciprocity" describe are absurd, I am saying using it as is being done is absurd. Reciprocity is a logical conclusion of relativity, but it is not some seperate entity or force or anything that supports or disproves relativity...it simply is a logical conclusion of.

- KitNyx

 

[Aer]

That's correct, like I said.

Do you remember the point that I'm actually talking about?

I think that SR predicts that in all frames, the Earth surface clock runs faster than the satellite clock.

There is no reason to believe this. Are you suggesting that in all frames, the surface clock ticks at the same different rate to the satellite clock? I highly suspect there aren't any two frames that will give the same difference in tick tock.

 

[KitNyx]

Reciprical...implies that there is an actual transfer of situation. There is not. Recipocity is a deflationary truth defining nothing by its being true.

- KitNyx

 

[Aer]

The "actual transfer of situation" is in how you approach the problem.

 

[KitNyx]

Actually, reading our different posts, geometry may be exactly what we need to decide upon as an axiom on which our positions can be built.

- KitNyx

 

[KitNyx]

What problem?

- KitNyx

 

[KitNyx]

In the universe you live in, is there ever a time in which the sum of a polygonial construct's angles are not what we would expect. Example, as we know, a triangles angles always add up to 180 degrees, but, must it always? A square or rectangle - 360 degrees etc..

- KitNyx