SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 13 Apr 2010 09:44 On Apr 13, 8:17 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > So wormy what is an absolute frame in physics? What are the > differences between an absolute frame and an inertial frame? Who are you talking to? > > Ken Seto > > > 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-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Michael Moroney on 13 Apr 2010 14:52 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 13, 12:56 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> Do you realize what you are saying here? >> >> >> "In relativity, all frames are equivalent, including the frame with >> >> exclusive properties which is not equivalent to other frames, which >> >> doesn't exist according to relativity." >> >I didn't say that. >> >> Well, then, you had better use the terms AS THEY ARE USED IN PHYSICS. >> In Physics, an absolute frame is special somehow, different from all >> other frames, such as the frame which was postulated where the >> luminiferous aether was at rest. You yourself talk about "the exclusive >> properties of the absolute rest frame" a few replies back. >What are the differences between an absolute frame and an inertial >frame???? Why is an absolute frame special? As I stated, the difference is that inertial frames exist and absolute frames don't. Absolute frames are "special" in the fact that they don't exist. >I talk about the exclusive properties of an absolute frame and every >SR observer adopt these properties so that means that every SR >observer assumes himself to be in a state of absolute rest. Which contradicts special relativity. >> So, it does work out that you state "In relativity, all frames are >> equivalent, including the frame with exclusive properties which is not >> equivalent to other frames, which doesn't exist according to relativity." >No relativity doesn't deny the existence of the absolute frame. It >says that it doesn't need the absolute frame to do the >calculations..... From Wikipedia: "Einstein's solution was to discard the notion of an aether and an absolute state of rest. Special relativity is formulated so as to not assume that any particular frame of reference is special; rather, in relativity, any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics." > as it turns out this is also wrong. Why? Because it >uses the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive its >math. LET also uses the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to >derive its math and that's why SR and LET have identical math. Repeat: "Any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics." You're wrong. Actually the whole idea of no preferred frames goes back to Galileo. >Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Apr 2010 15:04 On 4/13/10 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > So wormy what is an absolute frame in physics? What are the > differences between an absolute frame and an inertial frame? > > Ken Seto Hi Ken--There are no absolute frames in physics. Inertial frame of reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference "In physics, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference frame or inertial frame ) is a frame of reference which describes time homogeneously and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time independent manner. This allows motion and interactions to be described without the presence of fictitious forces. Special relativity states that there are actually infinitely many such frames, and the physical laws takes the same form as they do in any other inertial frame of the same handedness. In flat spacetimes, all inertial frames are in a state of constant, uniform motion with respect to one another". "By contrast, in non-inertial reference frames, the laws of physics are dependent upon the particular frame of reference, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by what are called fictitious forces. All non-inertial frames are accelerating with respect to all inertial frames". Do read the reference, Ken.
From: kenseto on 14 Apr 2010 09:58 On Apr 13, 2:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 13, 12:56 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >> Do you realize what you are saying here? > > >> >> "In relativity, all frames are equivalent, including the frame with > >> >> exclusive properties which is not equivalent to other frames, which > >> >> doesn't exist according to relativity." > >> >I didn't say that. > > >> Well, then, you had better use the terms AS THEY ARE USED IN PHYSICS. > >> In Physics, an absolute frame is special somehow, different from all > >> other frames, such as the frame which was postulated where the > >> luminiferous aether was at rest. You yourself talk about "the exclusive > >> properties of the absolute rest frame" a few replies back. > >What are the differences between an absolute frame and an inertial > >frame???? Why is an absolute frame special? > > As I stated, the difference is that inertial frames exist and absolute > frames don't. Absolute frames are "special" in the fact that they > don't exist. ROTFLOL....you can't have something that doesn't exist as special. It appears that you can't define the differences between an inertial frame and an absolute frame....so you now say that the absolute frame is special becaus eit doesn't exit. > > >I talk about the exclusive properties of an absolute frame and every > >SR observer adopt these properties so that means that every SR > >observer assumes himself to be in a state of absolute rest. > > Which contradicts special relativity. No it doesn't contradict SR. The PoR of SR allows every observer to use any frame to do physics. > > >> So, it does work out that you state "In relativity, all frames are > >> equivalent, including the frame with exclusive properties which is not > >> equivalent to other frames, which doesn't exist according to relativity." > >No relativity doesn't deny the existence of the absolute frame. It > >says that it doesn't need the absolute frame to do the > >calculations..... > > From Wikipedia: > > "Einstein's solution was to discard the notion of an aether and an > absolute state of rest. Special relativity is formulated so as to not > assume that any particular frame of reference is special; rather, in > relativity, any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe > the same laws of physics." Right...thye PoR allows that every inertial observer assumes the same laws of physics as the preferred frame. > > > as it turns out this is also wrong. Why? Because it > >uses the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive its > >math. LET also uses the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to > >derive its math and that's why SR and LET have identical math. > > Repeat: "Any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe > the same laws of physics." You're wrong. Right that's because every inertial observer assumes that he is in a preferred frame. Ken Seto > > Actually the whole idea of no preferred frames goes back to Galileo. > > > > >Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 14 Apr 2010 10:01
On Apr 13, 3:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/13/10 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > So wormy what is an absolute frame in physics? What are the > > differences between an absolute frame and an inertial frame? > > > Ken Seto > > Hi Ken--There are no absolute frames in physics. Assetion is not a valid arguement.SR and LET uses the absolute frame to derive its math. Ken Seto > > Inertial frame of reference > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference > > "In physics, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference > frame or inertial frame ) is a frame of reference which describes time > homogeneously and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time > independent manner. This allows motion and interactions to be described > without the presence of fictitious forces. Special relativity states > that there are actually infinitely many such frames, and the physical > laws takes the same form as they do in any other inertial frame of the > same handedness. In flat spacetimes, all inertial frames are in a state > of constant, uniform motion with respect to one another". > > "By contrast, in non-inertial reference frames, the laws of physics are > dependent upon the particular frame of reference, and the usual physical > forces must be supplemented by what are called fictitious forces. All > non-inertial frames are accelerating with respect to all inertial frames".. > > Do read the reference, Ken. |