SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Apr 2010 12:08 On 4/14/10 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. I agree Seto. You assert all the time and I wish, instead that you would cite empirical data to support arguments. SR and LET uses the absolute frame There you go again--asserting an absolute reference frame. Nobody doing physics has a need for an sbsolute reference 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. >
From: kenseto on 14 Apr 2010 13:36 On Apr 14, 12:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/14/10 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > 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. > > I agree Seto. You assert all the time and I wish, instead that > you would cite empirical data to support arguments. > > SR and LET uses the absolute frame > > There you go again--asserting an absolute reference frame. > Nobody doing physics has a need for an sbsolute reference frame. LET uses the absolute frame to do physics. SR also uses the absolute frame. That's why SR and LET have identical math. Ken Seto > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 14 Apr 2010 15:47 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 13, 2:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. The absolute rest frame, or preferred frame, is _defined_ as a reference frame where the laws of physics are different from those in other frames. It's "special" because it has its own special laws of physics. Since SR states that all inertial reference frames have the same laws of physics, a special frame where the laws of physics are different cannot exist (or is non-inertial). That's why I stated an absolute frame cannot 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. >No it doesn't contradict SR. The PoR of SR allows every observer to >use any frame to do physics. Any inertial frame, yes. But the ability to use any frame is because the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. This rules out any absolute frame where the laws of physics are different from other frames, if such a frame could exist. >> 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. No! The preferred frame is another name for the absolute frame, a frame where the laws of physics are special. Therefore, that frame cannot be used, if it existed, which it doesn't. >> 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. Wrong. Every inertial observer _cannot_ assumes that he is in a preferred frame, because that breaks the postulate that every inertial frame has the same laws of physics. And yet again, you are using your very own definitions, which contradict how physics uses the terms. It's like if you were arguing that stop signs and the "stop" traffic signal are green because you decided to call the color of ripe tomatoes "green". Make up your own term for a type of frame, and define what that term means. Don't use the term "absolute frame", because that term has already been used for something else. Sorry.
From: kenseto on 15 Apr 2010 09:55 On Apr 14, 3:47 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 13, 2:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > > The absolute rest frame, or preferred frame, is _defined_ as a reference > frame where the laws of physics are different from those in other frames. > It's "special" because it has its own special laws of physics. So why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? > Since SR states that all inertial reference frames have the same laws of > physics, a special frame where the laws of physics are different cannot > exist (or is non-inertial). That's why I stated an absolute frame cannot > exist. But every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame and yet you turn around and claim that the absolute frame doesn't exist. It's like you claim your mother is not your mother. > > >> >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. > > Any inertial frame, yes. But the ability to use any frame is because the > laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. This rules out any > absolute frame where the laws of physics are different from other frames, > if such a frame could exist. All you do is making assertions. Every inertial frame adopt the laws of physics of the absolute frame and that's why the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. > > >> 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. > > No! The preferred frame is another name for the absolute frame, a frame > where the laws of physics are special. Therefore, that frame cannot be > used, if it existed, which it doesn't. > > >> 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. > > Wrong. Every inertial observer _cannot_ assumes that he is in a preferred > frame, because that breaks the postulate that every inertial frame has > the same laws of physics. Every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame and that's why every inertial frame has the same laws of physics. Ken Seto > > And yet again, you are using your very own definitions, which contradict > how physics uses the terms. It's like if you were arguing that stop > signs and the "stop" traffic signal are green because you decided to call > the color of ripe tomatoes "green". > > Make up your own term for a type of frame, and define what that term means. > Don't use the term "absolute frame", because that term has already been > used for something else. Sorry.
From: Sam Wormley on 15 Apr 2010 10:01
On 4/15/10 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > Sigh...its not my own definition. The term preferred frame means that > a clock at rest in the perferred frame has the special properties that > it is the fastest running clock in the universe and that the speed of > light in the perferred frame is isotropic.....that's why it is called > the preferred frame. > Have you ever heard of the Copernican Principle? 14 July 2005 Letter To the Editor The Tribune In John W Patterson's letter to the Tribune of July 7, he comments on the book, "The Privileged Planet", by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards. John's letter was well crafted illuminating the bigger issue of the creationist movement, provided references and "keywords" that allow interested people to find out more, and he tied the story to Iowa! Very well done! I too, have read the book. I gave my copy to an emeritus professor of chemistry friend of mine, cautioning that he should not read it if he didn't want to raise his blood pressure. Some weeks later he wrote a scathing "book report" to me by email. He was disgusted! For example, concerning the chapter on the Copernican Principle, he wrote, "The authors set up a straw man imbuing the Copernican Principle with a number of ridiculous attributes that they then disparage and in so doing imply that they are destroying a scientific theory. Irritating rubbish!" The Copernican Principle is the philosophical statement that no "special" observers should be proposed. The term originated in the paradigm shift from the Aristotelian model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the center of the Solar system because it appears that everything revolved around Earth. The dictionary defines "principle" as 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy. 2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency. 3. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion. To be clear, principles in physics, are ideas having the ring of truth. But they are not mathematical theories or laws that can be tested empirically such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. However, they do offer guidance in sniffing out the Laws of nature. The Copernican Principle is one of the most successful scientific hypotheses in the history of science. No serious scientific theories are even proposed that violate the Copernican Principle. |