SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 17 Apr 2010 10:03 On Apr 16, 5:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(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? Yes it does. It accepted the existence of the absolute frame and uses it to derive the LET math. > > >There is only one absolute frame. > > No, there aren't any, according to SR. Well, SR is wrong....furthermore if absolute frame doesn't exist why does every Sr observer claims the laws of physics of the 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. > > That applies to _all_ inertial reference frame, not just one "absolute" > frame. No that applies only to the absolute frame....every inertial observer adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and that's why every inertial observer claims the properties of the absolute frame. > > > A LET observer assumes > >these properties of the absolute frame and that's why SR and LET have > >identical math. > > False. Why is that 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. It appears that you don't understand LET. > > > 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. Wrong....you need to read what SR says....not give your own interpretation. SR says that it doesn't need the absolute frame to do physics after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > >> 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. No only the absolute frame have those properties....every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. In real life an SR observer must include the possibility that a clock moving wrt him is running faster than his clock. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 17 Apr 2010 10:05 On Apr 16, 5:29 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. Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. Ken Seto
From: Peter Webb on 17 Apr 2010 10:06 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:0bc1a081-cce1-4f2d-87aa-6d5884105b5e(a)s7g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... On Apr 16, 5:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(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? Yes it does. It accepted the existence of the absolute frame and uses it to derive the LET math. _______________________________ You said it "describes it perfectly". So, what is the speed of the absolute frame relative to the sun?
From: kenseto on 17 Apr 2010 10:10 On Apr 16, 9:43 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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? Even though no inertial observer is in a state of absolute rest but every inertial frame observer adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame anyway. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 17 Apr 2010 10:15
On 4/17/10 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 16, 5:29 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. > > Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute > frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > Ken Seto SR doesn't say anything about or have any need for your "absolute" reference frames, Ken. All inertial reference frame are relative! 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 |