SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 Apr 2010 12:01 On Apr 8, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. And I said it's not just that. > > > 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. Oh, good grief, Seto. You don't even have his writings available to you. Here's a good place that you can click on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame > 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? First, accept the fact that SR explicitly says that there is no absolute reference frame. > 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: I'm sorry, Ken, that is not what defines an absolute reference frame. You've just made this part up on your own. > 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. Yes, there is, Ken. You are unaware that SR explicitly says there is no absolute rest frame. That is a huge, huge mistake. > > > > > > > > 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. If you are bonehead-ignorant of what SR says, that is not my problem. I can point you to things you can read where you can see for yourself what SR says, so you won't continue to make bonehead claims that SR says "A", when SR in fact says "not A". > > >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. SR is more than a postulate. If a postulate is all you've read, then it's no wonder you don't have the foggiest idea what SR says. > 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: PD on 8 Apr 2010 12:02 On Apr 8, 10:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. > > You see what I mean?
From: PD on 8 Apr 2010 12:02 On Apr 8, 10:33 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. Prove it. Cite where it says so. Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > ...so you agree that SR is self > contradictory :-)
From: Michael Moroney on 8 Apr 2010 13:15 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 7, 1:44=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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 :-) No. Only the first sentence is what SR states. The second sentence is what SR states only up to (but not including) the word "including". The rest of that sentence is your own creation, not Einstein's, and is what introduces the contradiction (discussing an absolute rest frame which the first sentence says doesn't exist). PD was correct, you blame SR for your own contradictions. Blame yourself for your own mistakes, not SR.
From: kenseto on 9 Apr 2010 11:44
On Apr 8, 10:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 [#]. The PoR says that all inertial frames are equivalent.If that doesn't include the absolute rest frame then you need to define the differences between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame. > As I keep saying and you > keep ignoring: YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ. Your bullying tactic is not working. Ken Seto > > [#] Try searching Einstein's translated paper for "absolute frame": > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > Tom Roberts |