SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Apr 2010 12:50 kenseto wrote: > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a physicist". Tom Roberts
From: PD on 6 Apr 2010 12:58 On Apr 6, 11:50 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame > > No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a > physicist". > > Tom Roberts Seto's argument: 1. The properties physicists ascribe to inertial frames in fact are properties unique to the absolute rest frame, by Seto's dictum. 2. Therefore physicists are equating inertial reference frames and the absolute rest frame. 3. Relativity says there is no such thing as the absolute rest frame. 4. Therefore relativity is self-contradictory, and must be replaced by a better theory with no contradictions. 5. Seto's theory is such a theory. Now, if you point out this is like asserting that mammalian property of having mammary glands is the unique property of reptiles, and that therefore mammals are reptiles, and therefore biological taxonomy is self-contradictory and needs to be replaced with a better taxonomy that classifies cats as reptiles, Seto will then ask you whether you are now claiming that inertial reference frames are reptiles. Seto's mind is like a fire that has gone out overnight. PD
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2010 16:52 On Apr 6, 12:50 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame > > No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a > physicist". ROTFLOL....You are denying the obvious.....the PoR asserts that all frames are equaivalent, including the absolute frame. That's why an SR observer can claim the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the math. That's why SR and LET have the same math. I do not confuse muyelf with the runts of physicists such as yourself. Ken Seto > > Tom Roberts
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2010 17:02 On Apr 6, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 11:50 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame > > > No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a > > physicist". > > > Tom Roberts > > Seto's argument: > 1. The properties physicists ascribe to inertial frames in fact are > properties unique to the absolute rest frame, by Seto's dictum. > 2. Therefore physicists are equating inertial reference frames and the > absolute rest frame. Yes. > 3. Relativity says there is no such thing as the absolute rest frame. No....relaticty name the absolute frame as an inertial frame. SR does not say that there is no absolute rest frame. SR says that all frames are equivalent, including the absolute rest frame. > 4. Therefore relativity is self-contradictory, and must be replaced by > a better theory with no contradictions. > 5. Seto's theory is such a theory. No relativity (SR) is incomplete. In order for SR to be complete it must include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. IRT is such a theory: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto Ken Seto > > Now, if you point out this is like asserting that mammalian property > of having mammary glands is the unique property of reptiles, and that > therefore mammals are reptiles, and therefore biological taxonomy is > self-contradictory and needs to be replaced with a better taxonomy > that classifies cats as reptiles, Seto will then ask you whether you > are now claiming that inertial reference frames are reptiles. > > Seto's mind is like a fire that has gone out overnight. > > PD
From: BURT on 6 Apr 2010 17:28
On Apr 6, 1:52 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 12:50 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame > > > No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a > > physicist". > > ROTFLOL....You are denying the obvious.....the PoR asserts that all > frames are equaivalent, including the absolute frame. That's why an SR > observer can claim the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to > derive the math. That's why SR and LET have the same math. > I do not confuse muyelf with the runts of physicists such as yourself. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Frames are flowing through space. If they have a fastest clock then they are in a slowest motion through space. Mitch Raemsch |