SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 16 Apr 2010 11:24 On Apr 15, 12:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 14, 3:47=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> 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? > > That's kind of like describing the difference between a rabbit and the > Easter Bunny. While the properties of a rabbit are well known, what is > the Easter Bunny like? Well, every little kid has their own vision of it, > with many ideas similar to other kids' ideas. It could be anything, > because it doesn't exist, although rabbits do. LET describes the absolute frame perfectly....so why can't you? > > What is a mythical absolute frame like? Which one? Well, the most common > mythical absolute frame is probably the one theorized where the > luminiferous aether was stationary, which I guess had all directions > appear identical. There is only one absolute frame.An observer at rest in this absolute frame will see (predict) all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rulers moving wrt him are contracted. Also the speed of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. A LET observer assumes these properties of the absolute frame and that's why SR and LET have identical math. > Non preferred frames had the aether in motion relative > to it, so light from one direction (in the direction of aether flow) > would behave differently than that from another direction (opposite the > aether flow or right angles to it or something). I am not up on the old > aether theory since modern physics has no need for it. LET says that the speed of light is isotropic only in the absolute frame and he use the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive its math. SR says that says that the speed of light is isotropic in every inertial frame including the absolute frame. The reason for this SR postulate is that every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the obsulte 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. > > No, you are using whatever you defined "absolute frame" to be, not how > theoretical physics defines it. What is the frame you call the Absolute > Frame? Perhaps it's the frame where a cosmic ray proton, moving at 0.9 c > parallel to the north-south axis of Pluto, is stationary. Since that > frame is an inertial frame, it can be used as a reference for physics. But > to avoid confusion, how about if we call that frame (or whichever frame > you call the "absolute frame") Seto's Frame or something, so people don't > think we're discussing the absolute frame of aether theory or some other > old theory. No the absolute frame has the following exclusive properties: 1. The speed of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. 2. All the clocks moving wrt the absolute frame are running slower. 3. All the rulers moving wrt the absolute frame are contracted. > > >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. > > Well, the laws of physics do work if you refer things to that cosmic ray > moving at 0.9c relative to Pluto, so that is true. The math is almost > always easier if the observer uses the frame that's stationary relative > to himself, however. Only you do that....the laws of physics in the absolute frame are as I described above. Ken Seto > > >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. > > I don't see why any observer would ever adopt that cosmic ray's frame > (remember, we'll call it Seto's Frame instead of the absolute frame from > now on, to avoid confusion) when the math is so much easier if they use > their own frame as a reference. Unless the observer was actually that > cosmic ray proton.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Apr 2010 11:27 <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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. > > _________________________________ > > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what makes > one > of them the absolute frame? The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs. Ken seto ________________________________ OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is not an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it? And, are you actually going to provide a "point by point rebuttal" of the explanation of SR that I provided as you boasted you would, or do you fully accept the explanation of SR which I provided? Here it is again: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf You going to do what you boasted you would, or are you just a blowhard?
From: kenseto on 16 Apr 2010 15:18 On Apr 16, 11:27 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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. > > > _________________________________ > > > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what makes > > one > > of them the absolute frame? > > The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every > inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and > that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs. > > Ken seto > > ________________________________ > OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is not > an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it? No...no inertial frame is in a sate of absolute rest. However, every inertial frame adopt the laws of physcs of the absolute frame. > > And, are you actually going to provide a "point by point rebuttal" of the > explanation of SR that I provided as you boasted you would, or do you fully > accept the explanation of SR which I provided? Why do I need to rebut what SR says? What an SR observer says is what an absolute rest observer says....after all, every Sr observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > > Here it is again: > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > You going to do what you boasted you would, or are you just a blowhard?
From: BURT on 16 Apr 2010 15:23 On Apr 16, 12:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 16, 11:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > _________________________________ > > > > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what makes > > > one > > > of them the absolute frame? > > > The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every > > inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and > > that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs. > > > Ken seto > > > ________________________________ > > OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is not > > an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it? > > No...no inertial frame is in a sate of absolute rest. However, every > inertial frame adopt the laws of physcs of the absolute frame. > > > > > And, are you actually going to provide a "point by point rebuttal" of the > > explanation of SR that I provided as you boasted you would, or do you fully > > accept the explanation of SR which I provided? > > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? What an SR observer says is what > an absolute rest observer says....after all, every Sr observer adopted > the laws of physics of the absolute rest frame. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Here it is again: > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > > You going to do what you boasted you would, or are you just a blowhard?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is absolute motion because of the motion of light in space. The lesser motions of matter are also absolutes in the space frame. Mitch Raemsch
From: Michael Moroney on 16 Apr 2010 17:25
"kenseto(a)erinet.com" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 15, 12:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> 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? >> >> That's kind of like describing the difference between a rabbit and the >> Easter Bunny. While the properties of a rabbit are well known, what is >> the Easter Bunny like? Well, every little kid has their own vision of it, >> with many ideas similar to other kids' ideas. It could be anything, >> because it doesn't exist, although rabbits do. >LET describes the absolute frame perfectly....so why can't you? No it doesn't. Where did you come up with that? >There is only one absolute frame. No, there aren't any, according to SR. >An observer at rest in this absolute >frame will see (predict) all the clocks moving wrt him are running >slow and all the rulers moving wrt him are contracted. Also the speed >of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. That applies to _all_ inertial reference frame, not just one "absolute" frame. > A LET observer assumes >these properties of the absolute frame and that's why SR and LET have >identical math. False. >LET says that the speed of light is isotropic only in the absolute >frame and he use the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to >derive its math. No, it doesn't. > SR says that says that the speed of light is >isotropic in every inertial frame including the absolute frame. No, SR states there is no absolute frame. Period. >> No, you are using whatever you defined "absolute frame" to be, not how >> theoretical physics defines it. What is the frame you call the Absolute >> Frame? Perhaps it's the frame where a cosmic ray proton, moving at 0.9 c >> parallel to the north-south axis of Pluto, is stationary. Since that >> frame is an inertial frame, it can be used as a reference for physics. But >> to avoid confusion, how about if we call that frame (or whichever frame >> you call the "absolute frame") Seto's Frame or something, so people don't >> think we're discussing the absolute frame of aether theory or some other >> old theory. >No the absolute frame has the following exclusive properties: >1. The speed of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. All inertial frames have that property. >2. All the clocks moving wrt the absolute frame are running slower. All inertial frames have that property. >3. All the rulers moving wrt the absolute frame are contracted. All inertial frames have that property. |