SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 19:13 On Mar 26, 5:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Ken wrote in this thread: "The reason why the GPS clock is in synch with the Ground clock at all time is because the rate of passage of absolute time is frame independent. " PD agreed in this thread: 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. PD wrote: No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Either you have some magic gunpowder that materialises for Ken's argument but not for Noether's theorem or or you have some new semantic games to play. Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1 of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation" that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.>> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > 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. I wouldn't want to disappoint you. ==> It speaks for itself. <== << 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...
From: eric gisse on 26 Mar 2010 22:23 kenseto wrote: [...] > Hey idiot.... Since you think everyone here is an idiot, why don't you post some place else? 15 years and nobody's convinced. Give up. [snip repeated drivel]
From: Michael Moroney on 26 Mar 2010 22:54 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. Two identical rockets pass each other in otherwise empty space at 0.866 c. The first rocket's observer sees the second pass at 0.866 c and observes that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the first rocket, the first observer sees only one second pass on the second rocket. The second rocket's observer sees the first pass at 0.866 c and observes that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the second rocket, the second observer sees only one second pass on the first rocket. How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first rocket? How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the second rocket?
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 23:04 On Mar 26, 10:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote:============================\ The GPS second is redefined have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This redefined GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second which is represented by N periods of Cs 133 radiation. The reason why the GPS clock is in synch with the Ground clock at all time is because the rate of passage of absolute time is frame independent. ==========================================/ > > [...] > > > Hey idiot.... > > Since you think everyone here is an idiot, why don't you post some place > else? 15 years and nobody's convinced. Give up. > > [snip repeated drivel] I was just wondering how many years of schooling it takes to recognise fundamental relationships even if they are written in a manner somewhat different from the way one is accustomed to seeing them. For example, it could be a useful problem solving skill to spot something fundamental like this in a problem: << 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 Just wondering... Sue...
From: kenseto on 27 Mar 2010 11:54
On Mar 26, 10:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >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. > > Two identical rockets pass each other in otherwise empty space at 0.866 c.. > > The first rocket's observer sees the second pass at 0.866 c and observes > that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the first > rocket, the first observer sees only one second pass on the second rocket.. > > The second rocket's observer sees the first pass at 0.866 c and observes > that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the second > rocket, the second observer sees only one second pass on the first rocket.. > > How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first > rocket? > > How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the second > rocket? Sigh....the rate of passage of absolute time is independent of relative motion or observers....That's why the GPS designers used absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground clock by making the redefined GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redefined GPS second will contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clock second which contains N periods of Cs 133 radiation. I suggest that you read the paper in the following link to gain more insight into this new concept. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto |