Why does time dilation only affect GPS satellites in one direction?

[cfrogue]

But the question at the end of post 93 had nothing to do with the the scenario I was talking about in the earlier part of the post, so you don't need to understand anything about that scenario to answer it. The question at the end of post 93 was just asking whether, since you already agreed "reciprocal time dilation" involves comparing multiple frames, then since the GPS system does all its calculation in one frame, it in no way contradicts the idea of reciprocal time dilation, it just doesn't address comparisons between frames in the first place. Do you agree or disagree that a calculation that's confined to just one frame cannot possibly in itself contradict a claim about what happens when you compare multiple frames?

Let's see.
The a posteriori logic of the experimental evidence proves a non reciprocal time dilation relationship between the satellite and the Earth based clocks.


I have been asking for a priori proofs to demonstate a consistency with the mainstream experimental evidence.

Do you have this for all directions?

 

[JesseM]

Let's see.
The a posteriori logic of the experimental evidence proves a non reciprocal time dilation relationship between the satellite and the Earth based clocks.

SR does not say anything about a reciprocity between total times elapsed on clocks over an extended period! For example, in the twin paradox there is only one objective truth about which clock has elapsed less time between meetings. The only "reciprocity" is between the instantaneous rate of ticking of different clocks when this rate is calculated in two different frames--one frame can say that clock A is ticking slower then clock B at the moment clock B shows a particular time, another frame can say clock A is ticking faster than clock B at the moment clock B shows that time.

Do you disagree?

I have been asking for a priori proofs to demonstate a consistency with the mainstream experimental evidence.

Do you have this for all directions?

There are general proofs that you can apply the same relativistic laws in different coordinate systems and they must make identical predictions about local events.

 

[cfrogue]

SR does not say anything about a reciprocity between total times elapsed on clocks over an extended period! For example, in the twin paradox there is only one objective truth about which clock has elapsed less time between meetings. The only "reciprocity" is between the instantaneous rate of ticking of different clocks when this rate is calculated in two different frames--one frame can say that clock A is ticking slower then clock B at the moment clock B shows a particular time, another frame can say clock A is ticking faster than clock B at the moment clock B shows that time.

Do you disagree?

Of course I do.

I can solve the normal twins paradox with an integral both ways and it is eazy.

I will conclude the traveling twin is younger in both cases.

This is different.

I suggest you listen and separate theory from logic and make sure they both match.

 

[JesseM]

Of course I do.

What part of it do you disagree with? Your comments below suggest you didn't read what I was saying very carefully, or didn't understand it.

I can solve the normal twins paradox with an integral both ways and it is eazy.

I will conclude the traveling twin is younger in both cases.

Uh, yes, that was exactly my point. Since "reciprocal time dilation" in SR only works when you're talking about instantaneous rates of ticking in different frames, it does not imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock. Similarly, if you calculate the instantaneous rate of ticking for orbiting vs. ground clocks in different frames you can find a reciprocal relationship, but all frames will agree on which clock elapses more time over the course of an entire orbit. In both cases, "reciprocal time dilation" only applies to instantaneous ticking rates, not to elapsed times. Therefore, the fact that the GPS clock objectively elapses less time over an entire orbit does not imply a failure of "reciprocal time dilation". Again, do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, quote the first one you specifically disagree with.

 

[cfrogue]

What part of it do you disagree with? Your comments below suggest you didn't read what I was saying very carefully, or didn't understand it.

Uh, yes, that was exactly my point. Since "reciprocal time dilation" in SR only works when you're talking about instantaneous rates of ticking in different frames, it does not imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock. Similarly, if you calculate the instantaneous rate of ticking for orbiting vs. ground clocks in different frames you can find a reciprocal relationship, but all frames will agree on which clock elapses more time over the course of an entire orbit. In both cases, "reciprocal time dilation" only applies to instantaneous ticking rates, not to elapsed times. Therefore, the fact that the GPS clock objectively elapses less time over an entire orbit does not imply a failure of "reciprocal time dilation". Again, do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, quote the first one you specifically disagree with.

I suggest you read the twins thread that exists. I posted there.

If you want to operate in this place, that post is not yet challenged.

Let's go there now. and we can come back here OK?

 

[JesseM]

I suggest you read the twins thread that exists. I posted there.

If you want to operate in this place, that post is not yet challenged.

Let's go there now. and we can come back here OK?

OK, I answered your question there. Now please answer mine:

Since "reciprocal time dilation" in SR only works when you're talking about instantaneous rates of ticking in different frames, it does not imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock. Similarly, if you calculate the instantaneous rate of ticking for orbiting vs. ground clocks in different frames you can find a reciprocal relationship, but all frames will agree on which clock elapses more time over the course of an entire orbit. In both cases, "reciprocal time dilation" only applies to instantaneous ticking rates, not to elapsed times. Therefore, the fact that the GPS clock objectively elapses less time over an entire orbit does not imply a failure of "reciprocal time dilation". Again, do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, quote the first one you specifically disagree with.

 

[cfrogue]

Since "reciprocal time dilation" in SR only works when you're talking about instantaneous rates of ticking in different frames, it does not imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock. Similarly, if you calculate the instantaneous rate of ticking for orbiting vs. ground clocks in different frames you can find a reciprocal relationship, but all frames will agree on which clock elapses more time over the course of an entire orbit. In both cases, "reciprocal time dilation" only applies to instantaneous ticking rates, not to elapsed times. Therefore, the fact that the GPS clock objectively elapses less time over an entire orbit does not imply a failure of "reciprocal time dilation". Again, do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, quote the first one you specifically disagree with.

OK,
1) Since "reciprocal time dilation" in SR only works when you're talking about instantaneous rates of ticking in different frames, it does not imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock.
False

2) Similarly, if you calculate the instantaneous rate of ticking for orbiting vs. ground clocks in different frames you can find a reciprocal relationship, but all frames will agree on which clock elapses more time over the course of an entire orbit.

I have been looking for you and your friends to prove this with the path integral for both directions.

3) In both cases, "reciprocal time dilation" only applies to instantaneous ticking rates, not to elapsed times. Therefore, the fact that the GPS clock objectively elapses less time over an entire orbit does not imply a failure of "reciprocal time dilation". Again, do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, quote the first one you specifically disagree with

I have no idea what system of logic you are using to conclude this.

 

[JesseM]

OK,
1) Since "reciprocal time dilation" in SR only works when you're talking about instantaneous rates of ticking in different frames, it does not imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock.
False

What part do you think is false? Do you think reciprocal time dilation does imply a reciprocal relationship between the total elapsed time on each twin's clock, meaning that each twin should make the reciprocal prediction that the other twin's clock will have elapsed less time when they reunite?

And if your answer is "no", if you agree with me that there is a single objective truth about whose clock has elapsed more time when they reunite, then how is this "reciprocal"?

 

[Jorrie]

IMO, using three purely inertial clocks, one can demonstrate coordinate independent relativistic time dilation without invoking acceleration as part of the test. I do not wish to dilute this thread by debating it here, but unless already beaten to death in this forum, maybe we can devote another thread to it.

Can you do this please?

I do not think another thread is necessary.

JesseM and me just cleared some possible confusion, but such an "Acceleration vs. Frame Swap" analysis does not belong in the GPS thread. Maybe rather in the other current Twins thread.

 

[yuiop]

With reference to Jesse's towers and satellites experiment:

If you try to synchronise all the satellite clocks with each other you will find it is impossible to do. Each satellite clock can be synchronised with its immediate neighbour but when you get to the final two satellites they are completely out of sync. That is a strong indication that the satellite observers are not in an inertial reference frame and that is one reason that their reciprocal perception of the tower clocks running slower than the satellites on a local scale does not hold on a larger scale.

 

[cfrogue]

With reference to Jesse's towers and satellites experiment:

If you try to synchronise all the satellite clocks with each other you will find it is impossible to do. Each satellite clock can be synchronised with its immediate neighbour but when you get to the final two satellites they are completely out of sync. That is a strong indication that the satellite observers are not in an inertial reference frame and that is one reason that their reciprocal perception of the tower clocks running slower than the satellites on a local scale does not hold on a larger scale.

Is this when they are apparently moving together they cannot sync?

Also, do you have any mainstream papers that show the synchronization methods between satellites?

 

[yuiop]

Is this when they are apparently moving together they cannot sync?

Yes. It is the same for clocks placed on the rim of rotating turntable. Observers on the turntable can not get all the clocks to sync from their point of view.

Also, do you have any mainstream papers that show the synchronization methods between satellites?

I am talking about straight forward Einstein synchronisation method using light signals, i.e. placing a signalling device exactly half way between two clocks and starting the clocks when they receive the signal.

 

[cfrogue]

Yes. It is the same for clocks placed on the rim of rotating turntable. Observers on the turntable can not get all the clocks to sync from their point of view.



I am talking about straight forward Einstein synchronisation method using light signals, i.e. placing a signalling device exactly half way between two clocks and starting the clocks when they receive the signal.

OK, this is the sagnac effect.

Is this correct?

 

[yuiop]

OK, this is the sagnac effect.

Is this correct?

It's related.

 

[yogi]

A way to look at the SR time dilation in GPS is to treat it as a round trip Twin paradox - but there are no accelerations because the satellite is in orbit and therefore it remains in an inertial system during the entire experiment - First, stop the earth. Then measure the data for completion of one orbit as follows: the satellite passes over head and a clock T1 in the satellite is started and a clock T2 on the ground station is started - the satellite makes one orbit and both clocks are read - there are 4 factors -the change in time dT2 of the clock on the ground (the non rotating Earth reference), the distance traveled by the satellite in the Earth frame (the circumference of the orbit = D), the time lapsed as measured by the orbiting clock dT1, and the distance traveled by the ground clock T2 which is zero. To find the SR time dilation -simply apply the principle of the "invariance of the spacetime interval" in each frame"