SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: brucepew on 8 Apr 2010 05:35 On Mar 20, 4:57 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 1:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3/19/10 9:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks... > > > You have been totally mislead about this concept of "absolute" > > time, distance, or position. Special and general relatively > > have no need of absolute time and onservation shows that there > > is no absolute time. > > Hey Wormy absolute time is the only time that exists. Observed > relativistic effects are due to a moving clock second contains a > different amount of absolute time than the observer's clock second. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Seto--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. > > There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction > > of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and > > you should take the time to learn it, Seto. > > > What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > How do you add velocities in special relativity? > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html > > > Can special relativity handle acceleration? > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration..html Ha ha. kenseto orbiting the dunce stool.
From: Tom Roberts on 8 Apr 2010 10:46 kenseto 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 your problem -- the PoR makes no mention of "absolute frame" at all, yet you persist in reading something that isn't there [#]. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring: YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ. [#] Try searching Einstein's translated paper for "absolute frame": http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Tom Roberts
From: kenseto on 8 Apr 2010 11:28 On Apr 7, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 6:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 4:02 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, it does. It explicitly says there is no such thing as an absolute > > > rest frame. > > > It is true that no object in the universe is in a state absolute rest > > frame. > > The statement is stronger than that. It is not just that there are no > objects at absolute rest. So????? That's what I said. > Relativity makes the explicit assertion -- in black and white -- that > there is no absolute rest frame at all. No such assertion.....I can be convinced if you point out where Einstein made such assertion. Also if there is no absolute rest frame then why does an SR observer uses the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame to derive its math? Also can you tell me what are the differences between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame? Here's what I think the properties of an absolute rest frame: 1. All the clocks in the universe moving wrt the absolute rest observer are running slower than the absolute rest clock. 2. All the ruler in the universe moving wrt the absolute rest observer are contracted compared to the absolute rest ruler. 3. The speed of light is isotropic and a constant math ratio in the absolute rest frame. >Period. The rest of what > you've said below is wrong, because it follows from this mistake. There is no mistake on my part. > > > > > > > However the PoR says that all frames are equivalent including > > the absolute rest frame and therefore every SR obsrever uses the > > absolute rest frame to derive its math. LET derived its math based on > > the absolute rest frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math. You > > show me where SR says that there is no such thing as an absolute rest > > frame. > > > > I don't know what you're reading about what SR says, but if your > > > reading material doesn't explain this, then you've got crappy reading > > > material. > > > > > SR says that all frames > > > > are equivalent, including the absolute rest frame. > > > > SR says all inertial reference frames have the same laws of physics. > > > It isn't about to make the same claim about a frame it explicitly says > > > does not exist. > > > But the PoR includes the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame. The > > PoR does not say that the absolute rest frame doesn't exist. > > Special relativity says the absolute rest frame doesn't exist. Assertion is not a valid arguement. >I don't > know why you are looking for that statement to be included in the PoR. > Special relativity involves more than the one-sentence PoR. The PoR is the main postulate. It allows an SR observer to use any frame to derive its math and the simplest frame is the absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Setp > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 8 Apr 2010 11:33 On Apr 7, 1:44 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 6, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > No....relaticty name the absolute frame as an inertial frame. SR does > >> > not say that there is no absolute rest frame. > > >> Yes, it does. It explicitly says there is no such thing as an absolute > >> rest frame. > >It is true that no object in the universe is in a state absolute rest > >frame. However the PoR says that all frames are equivalent including > >the absolute rest frame and therefore every SR obsrever uses the > >absolute rest frame to derive its math. > > Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. What I said is what SR says....so you agree that SR is self contradictory :-)
From: kenseto on 8 Apr 2010 11:48
On Apr 7, 2:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 12:44 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Apr 6, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > No....relaticty name the absolute frame as an inertial frame. SR does > > >> > not say that there is no absolute rest frame. > > > >> Yes, it does. It explicitly says there is no such thing as an absolute > > >> rest frame. > > >It is true that no object in the universe is in a state absolute rest > > >frame. However the PoR says that all frames are equivalent including > > >the absolute rest frame and therefore every SR obsrever uses the > > >absolute rest frame to derive its math. > > > Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. > > This doesn't bother Seto. He embraces contradictory sentences. > He likes saying things like "Every observer in his own inertial frame > assumes he is in THE absolute rest frame", Yes that's what every SR observer assumes. BTW such assumption is the reason why SR is incomplete. SR is valid only if the observed frame is in a higher state of absolute motion such as in the accelerator design applications. >even though two different > observers are in different inertial frames and cannot possibly claim > to be in the one, unique absolute rest frame. But that's exactly what every SR observer assumes. In real life such SR assumption is valid if the observed frame is in a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. Ken Seto > When such obviously > nonsensical contradictions arise, Seto blames SR rather than himself > for coming up with it. |