SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 16 Apr 2010 17:29 > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to have to rebut SR.
From: BURT on 16 Apr 2010 17:54 On Apr 16, 12:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are two time form frames within an absolute flowing space with aether frame.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Apr 2010 21:43 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:96088237-0520-4342-a0e3-a6ebae78cb60(a)d34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... 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. ______________________________ But you said above (and I quote) that "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". Therefore the absolute frame is *not* an inertial frame. If the absolute frame isn't an inertial frame, then what is it, according to you?
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Apr 2010 21:44 On 4/16/10 2:18 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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 Relativity uses no absolute frames, Seto. An Observer is at rest with respect to herself. Speed of light appears isotropic TO ALL observer, including the observer's frame. All clocks moving WRT the OBSERVER'S frame show time dilation as predicted by special and general relativity. All rods moving with respect to the OBSERVER's frame would be foreshortened in the direction of radial motion as predicted by special and general relativity. Relativity makes NO use of special frames, as all frames are relative. Ever wonder why it's call "relativity"? 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: BURT on 17 Apr 2010 02:10
On Apr 16, 2:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? > > You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no > absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to > have to rebut SR. Light flow frame is the speed limit of the universe. Light has the fastest time flow rate or the fastest clock of time over energy. Mitch Raemsch |