Dingle was entirely discredited decades ago. His questions have bene thoroughly answered and you’re getting answers in this thread you are not reading or responding to. You keep asking “which clock is running slow,” a question that doesn’t even make sense. The answer isn’t one clock or another, it’s “depends on your frame of reference.” There is no other answer in this universe. That’s a proven fact. Experiments have shown it to be true.
I think you might want to ask yourself why experiments keep showing special relativity is true. Science is proven through experiments.
tomh4040, you could learn the derivation of special relativity. I learnt it in school, though now forty something years ago and I’ve forgotten it. I have it written out in a stack of papers a quarter inch thick in a now-embrittling envelope on the shelf. But it’s something you can do with high school level algebra, starting with the observation that light coming from astronomically distant sources (stars) hits us at the same speed whether measured when Earth’s orbit carries us toward the source, or when away from the source. That’s a tenable measurement, at least in an observatory with some extra equipment on hand, and everything else (in special relativity) follows from that. If you believe your lying eyes, and if you proceed by doing the same thing to two equal quantities and believe that the new quantities also have to be equal, then you get there. If you don’t believe those things, what can you do to test ideas anyway?
If you actually figured out Einstein got it all wrong, many people would pay attention, for sure. But based on your posts, that’s not it, you are just not following the logic, or haven’t been exposed to it. The information is out there. Maybe you just like a good argument? There’s a great argument embedded in the algebra.
And it does have a simple answer: The other one. Whichever clock is in your frame of reference, the other one is moving slower. To the guy on Spaceship A, clock B is slower, and to the guy on Spaceship B, clock A is slower. What’s wrong with that answer?
Or to relate back to the ruler analogy - the other ruler is shorter. If you sit on ruler A, then ruler B’s markings appear compressed. If you sit on ruler B, then ruler A’s markings appear compressed - a real-world example of how two apparently mutually contradictory observations can exist*
I mention this just because I expect the words ‘but that’s a paradox and therefore impossible’ are marching with confidence toward this conversation.
Wolfpup, I cannot reply to every post I receive, that is impossible. Einstein says that the SRT effects - length contraction, mass increase, and time dilation are real. So I repeat the question about the moving clocks :- according to the rules of SRT, which of the two clocks is running slower than the other, why that one and not the other? You notice that I have said “according to the rules of SRT”, so you can use reference frames in your answer if you wish, but that answer must be unambiguous. Which clock is it?
Francis, the satellites do not come into this equation, we are talking about sending a signal round the equator.
If a signal was transmitted east along the equator it would take 0.1337 seconds to get back to its starting point (this could be done using mirrors or optic fibres for visible light, or re-transmitters for radio signals). Calculation: divide the circumference of the equator by the speed of light: 2pi6378137/(2.998x108) = 0.13367s
But the equator is moving, and during that time the original transmission point would have moved east by 62m. Calculation: multiply that time by equatorial velocity: 0.13367*465.1 = 62.17m
It would take an additional 207.4ns to cover that distance. Calculation: divide that distance by the speed of light: 62.17/(2.998x108) = 2.074x10-7s = 207.4nsSatellites transmit their signal to Earth and that’s that. There’s no transmission back to the satellites, or between satellites, and none of their signals are made to loop the equator. So in what way does the Sagnac effect have any relevance?
Satellites transmit their signal to Earth and that’s that. There’s no transmission back to the satellites, or between satellites, and none of their signals are made to loop the equator. So in what way does the Sagnac effect have any relevance?
RickJay, Dingle has not been discredited, and his question has not been answered. If it has, and I missed it, please post it here. As I said in a previous post I cannot possibly reply to every question. You have mis-quoted the question. The question is not “which clock is running slow?” as you said.
It is “According to the theory of relativity, which clock is running slow?”. So use the theory of relativity to tell me which is running slow, and why that one. The theory says that B is running slower than A because of its motion. But all velocities are relative, therefore A is running slower than B because of its motion. That is impossible.
Chronos, the thing wrong with that answer is that you talking appearances. In actuality (reality), one clock cannot run concurrently both faster and slower than another. Einstein said that these effects were real.
B is running slow from A’s reference frame and A is running slow from B’s reference frame.
On the GPS question, you’re wrong that no communication comes up from Earth. That communication is not used to determine your position, but the ground stations definitely communicate with the GPS satellites to correct their time and do other corrections. Also, those satellites are not in an equatorial orbit, for what it’s worth.
You are going to have to explain what you think this means. What do you mean be “real”.
We keep giving you the answer, and you keep replying with exactly the same retort. Every time. What do you mean by “real”?
It seems you define “real” as something that has some universal truth at a given time. Yet we keep telling you, there is no such thing as a simultaneous viewpoint, and this is what Einstein said. This is the reality Einstein talked of. It just doesn’t seem to match your preconceived idea of reality. By constantly saying “Einstein said that these effects were real.” you are in a sense putting words into Einstein’s mouth. You are by slight of hand asserting that his version of real is yours, and thus there is a contradiction.
He was quite clear about what reality is, and his reality includes relativity. Basically you are attempting to manufacture a contradiction from thin air. That isn’t a valid logical argument.
The effects are real. The twin paradox really does work.
Sigh. No it isn’t. It absolutely is possible. Because you are still not getting the point about different reference frames and refuse to acknowledge that there is no one true reference frame you still think it is impossible. Really every time you say “That is impossible” you should just write, “I believe there exists a one true reference frame.” Semantically they are the same thing. But it would save time.
Right, it’s not just possible, it has been proven over and over again. Particles with short half lives moving at high speed in an accelerator last longer than they “should”, because from our reference frame, they are booking along and experiencing time slower.
Francis, we really are talking at cross purposes here. You are asking what do I mean by real, and then saying there is no such thing as a simultaneous viewpoint. A simultaneous viewpoint is not needed to answer the question. The question is “what according to the theory…”. The answer therefore should start with a simple - “The answer according to the theory is …”. Nobody has yet answered that question. Your answer ended with “The effects are real.” That statement says that clock A is faster than clock B and that clock B is faster than clock A which is impossible.
OK.
The answer according to the theory is that from the reference frame of one clock the other is slower. There is no one true viewpoint so there is no contradiction in this result.
Why is it impossible? You keep saying it is, but you never say why. Other than believing that there is one true reference frame. So why is it impossible?
I got around to checking this.
Easy answer. The correction is the EW-WE difference. Thus the two-way correction. The other factor is the latitude of the three stations and thus the actual path taken.
It isn’t 0 because the stations were not at either pole, and it isn’t 207*2 because the stations were not on the equator.
The latitudes of the stations are 35º, 40º and 52º. Performing a simple correction for latitude we get equivalent two way corrections of:
339ns
317ns
252ns.
As a back of the envelope calculation one can see that the numbers in the paper are entirely reasonable.
