SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 11 Apr 2010 10:37 On Apr 8, 12:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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_r... What this article said is wrong. The PoR does not say that there is no absolute rest frame. The PoR says that no inertial observer is at rest in the absolute rest frame. However, inspite of these qualifications Einstein proceeded to use the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame to derive the SR math. That's the SR math is identical to the LET math which assumes the existence of the absolute rest frame and used its exlcusive properties to derive the LET math. If you insist that there is no absolute rest frame then you need to define the differences in properties between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 11 Apr 2010 14:19 On Apr 11, 9:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 12:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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_r... > > What this article said is wrong. I'm sorry, Ken. You don't get to make up what the PoR says. What the PoR says is *documented*. If you have documentation otherwise, then please provide it. > The PoR does not say that there is no > absolute rest frame. The PoR says that no inertial observer is at rest > in the absolute rest frame. The PoR says nothing of the kind. Not at all. I don't know where you got the idea the PoR says this. It sounds like it's a statement you made up and just attached the label PoR to it, because that's not at all what the PoR says. Stop making things up, Ken! > However, inspite of these qualifications > Einstein proceeded to use the exclusive properties of the absolute > rest frame to derive the SR math. That's the SR math is identical to > the LET math which assumes the existence of the absolute rest frame > and used its exlcusive properties to derive the LET math. > If you insist that there is no absolute rest frame then you need to > define the differences in properties between an inertial frame and an > absolute rest frame. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 12 Apr 2010 09:20 On Apr 11, 10:28 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/11/10 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > What I said there is based on the fact that every SR observer uses the > > exclusive prerties of the absolute rest frame to derive its math....so > > every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in the absolute rest > > frame. > > You make no sense, Seto. > > Relativity makes NO use of special frames, as all frames are relative. > Ever wonder why it's call "relativity"? Hey idiot wormy....Here are the facts for an absolute frame: 1. The speed of light isotropic in the absolute rest frame. 2. All clocks moving wrt the absolute rest clocks are running slower. 3. All rods moving wrt the absolute rest rod are contracted. Inspite of the fact that SR is called relativity every SR observer chooses the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame to derive its math. BTW that's why SR and LET have the same math. Every LET observer accept the notion of an absolute frame and it uses that to derive the LET math. 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
From: kenseto on 12 Apr 2010 09:34 On Apr 11, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 9:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 12:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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_r... > > > What this article said is wrong. > > I'm sorry, Ken. You don't get to make up what the PoR says. What the > PoR says is *documented*. If you have documentation otherwise, then > please provide it. > > > The PoR does not say that there is no > > absolute rest frame. The PoR says that no inertial observer is at rest > > in the absolute rest frame. > > The PoR says nothing of the kind. Not at all. I don't know where you > got the idea the PoR says this. > It sounds like it's a statement you made up and just attached the > label PoR to it, because that's not at all what the PoR says. It doesn't matter what the PoR said...if you insist that there is no absolute rest frame then you need to explain the differences in properties between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > > Stop making things up, Ken! > > > > > However, inspite of these qualifications > > Einstein proceeded to use the exclusive properties of the absolute > > rest frame to derive the SR math. That's the SR math is identical to > > the LET math which assumes the existence of the absolute rest frame > > and used its exlcusive properties to derive the LET math. > > If you insist that there is no absolute rest frame then you need to > > define the differences in properties between an inertial frame and an > > absolute rest frame. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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 -- 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 12 Apr 2010 09:45
On Apr 12, 8:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:28 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4/11/10 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > What I said there is based on the fact that every SR observer uses the > > > exclusive prerties of the absolute rest frame to derive its math....so > > > every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in the absolute rest > > > frame. > > > You make no sense, Seto. > > > Relativity makes NO use of special frames, as all frames are relative. > > Ever wonder why it's call "relativity"? > > Hey idiot wormy....Here are the facts for an absolute frame: What you write below is not what absolute frame means in physics. You have made the below up and then attached the label "absolute frame" to it. This is wholly an invention of your own mind, Ken. > 1. The speed of light isotropic in the absolute rest frame. > 2. All clocks moving wrt the absolute rest clocks are running slower. > 3. All rods moving wrt the absolute rest rod are contracted. > Inspite of the fact that SR is called relativity every SR observer > chooses the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame to derive > its math. BTW that's why SR and LET have the same math. Every LET > observer accept the notion of an absolute frame and it uses that to > derive the LET math. > > 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 > > |