SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 16:47 On Mar 26, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 12:57 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Mar 24, 12:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> There are additional Doppler effects on the GPS signal as the satellites > > >> approach or recede, but I'm not talking about that. Don't try to confuse > > >> matters by mixing the Doppler of the GPS signals and the Doppler train > > >> example. > > > >> Consider the signal from a satellite as it passes directly overhead, so > > >> that it is neither approaching nor receding. Doppler effect is zero. > > >> However since the satellite is not as deep in the earth's gravity well, > > >> there are GR effects. In addition the satellite is moving at a decent > > >> clip so that there are SR (NOT Doppler!) effects. With the cesium clock > > >> "mis-set" so that the divisor is N+4.15 periods of Cs, the received > > >> signal on earth's surface is absolutely correct. (remember, no Doppler > > >> in this case). > > >Sigh....the title of this thread is SR/GR uses abnsolute time to > > >synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock. Here you are talking > > >about the corrections to the data received from the GPS. > > > I don't even mention data. It is nothing but a frequency. On board, the > > clock runs at 10.22999999543 MHz, the ground receiver sees it as 10.23 MHz. > > > There is no such thing as "absolute time" just as there is no such thing > > as an absolute reference frame. How could there be? Consider a series of > > identical atomic clocks, one on the ground, the others in rockets directly > > over the ground clock at different altitudes and not moving relative to it > > (to eliminate Dopppler (and SR) effects). All of these clocks run at > > slightly different rates from each other, due to GR. Which one runs at > > "absolute time" and why? > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > readings on the observed clocks. Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > Ken Seto
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 17:11 On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > readings on the observed clocks. > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. Are you arguing contrary to that notion? If so, kindly point out the error in these references: << * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy Sue... > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 17:16 On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time.. > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > readings on the observed clocks. > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so either way... > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that bonobos are not more closely related to chimps than chimps are to humans. If so, kindly point out the error in this reference: http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391HumanMacroEvol.htm > If so, kindly point out the error in these references: > > << * invariance with respect to time translation gives > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > Sue... > > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 17:35 On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > > readings on the observed clocks. > ============== > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. > > He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the > discussion at hand, so either way... > > ============== > > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? > > No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, Thank you. If Ken has some other basis to assume "universal time" I am sure he will convey it but there are some widely accepted symmetries in physics that support his "assertion" and outside of kook-land, the home of the perpetual motion, are seldom questioned. << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy Sue... > since it has nothing > whatsoever to do with the discussion. > > You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that bonobos are not more > closely related to chimps than chimps are to humans. If so, kindly > point out the error in this reference:http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391HumanMacroE... > > > If so, kindly point out the error in these references: > > > << * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > > Sue... > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 17:48
On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > > > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > > > readings on the observed clocks. > > ============== > > > > > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > > > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > > > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. > > > He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the > > discussion at hand, so either way... > > ============== > > > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? > > > No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, > > Thank you. If Ken has some other basis to assume > "universal time" I am sure he will convey it but > there are some widely accepted symmetries in physics > that support his "assertion" and outside of > kook-land, the home of the perpetual motion, are > seldom questioned. If by widely accepted symmetries you mean the conservation of energy, I don't know where you ever got the notion that absolute time had anything to do with the invariance of a physical law with respect to time translation. Was it the fact that they both contained the word "time"? Since Noether's theorem has nothing to do with, nor implies anything about, absolute time, it would be hard to imagine how Noether's theorem would be supportive of it. At this point, I expect you to sniff, repost the extract of the link, and mutter something about it speaking for itself. It in fact does speak for itself, but it's not saying the same thing you're saying. At all. > > << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to > gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, > by just analyzing the various transformations that would > make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: > > * the invariance of physical systems with respect > to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws > of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives > the law of conservation of linear momentum; > * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law > of conservation of angular momentum; > * invariance with respect to time translation gives > the well-known law of conservation of energy >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > Sue... > > > since it has nothing > > whatsoever to do with the discussion. > > > You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that bonobos are not more > > closely related to chimps than chimps are to humans. If so, kindly > > point out the error in this reference:http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391HumanMacroE... The above about bonobos is just as closely related to absolute time. Perhaps you should bookmark this one and make constant referrals to it. > > > > If so, kindly point out the error in these references: > > > > << * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > > > Sue... > > > > > > Ken Seto > > |