SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 17 Apr 2010 10:26 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:ccd063ff-138e-49a7-8251-6137445c5e99(a)k11g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... 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. ____________________________ What is the absolute frame to which you refer? What is its speed relative to the Sun? How is it different an inertial frame that is *not* an absolute frame?
From: Michael Moroney on 17 Apr 2010 15:25 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. No it doesn't. SR says that it doen't need the absolute frame. Period. The rest of that sentence is your own creation, nothing to do with SR.
From: Michael Moroney on 17 Apr 2010 15:44 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 16, 5:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. Again, where did you come up with that? Quote/reference, please. >> >There is only one absolute frame. >> >> No, there aren't any, according to SR. >Well, SR is wrong First you claim SR is correct and uses the absolute frame. Now you say SR is wrong for saying there is no absolute frame. Make up your mind. >....furthermore if absolute frame doesn't exist why >does every Sr observer claims the laws of physics of the absolute >frame???? Because they don't. >> >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. How could it apply only to some absolute frame if every inertial observer can use it no matter what (inertial) frame they are in? >> > 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??? Because there is no absolute framem and LET observers make no such assumptions. >> >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. OK, let's hear what *you think* LET states, complete with references to absolute frames. >> > 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. See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/. The word "absolute" is used 3 times. The first is where Einstein states that elecrodynamics and mechanics possess no properties of absolute rest. The second is where he declares the aether superfluous and there is no need for "absolutely stationary space" with special properties. The third is that there is no absolute simultaneity. No adoption of any "physics of the absolute frame" and the first two statements make it pretty clear that there is simply no need for any absolute frame. You really need to take Wormley's advice. You need to learn special relativity. Obviously you don't really understand it. >> >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. Those two sentences contradict each other. Anyway, that's irrelevant, since your claim "only the absolute frame have those properties" is false, SR states that all inertial frames have those properties. > 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. Give me an instance of inertial relative motion where one observer observes the clock of another observer running faster. (SR, not GR examples)
From: BURT on 17 Apr 2010 16:20 On Apr 17, 12:44 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 16, 5:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > > Again, where did you come up with that? Quote/reference, please. > > >> >There is only one absolute frame. > > >> No, there aren't any, according to SR. > >Well, SR is wrong > > First you claim SR is correct and uses the absolute frame. Now you > say SR is wrong for saying there is no absolute frame. Make up your > mind. > > >....furthermore if absolute frame doesn't exist why > >does every Sr observer claims the laws of physics of the absolute > >frame???? > > Because they don't. > > >> >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. > > How could it apply only to some absolute frame if every inertial > observer can use it no matter what (inertial) frame they are in? > > >> > 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??? > > Because there is no absolute framem and LET observers make no such > assumptions. > > >> >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. > > OK, let's hear what *you think* LET states, complete with references > to absolute frames. > > >> > 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. > > Seehttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/. > > The word "absolute" is used 3 times. The first is where Einstein states > that elecrodynamics and mechanics possess no properties of absolute rest. > The second is where he declares the aether superfluous and there is no > need for "absolutely stationary space" with special properties. The > third is that there is no absolute simultaneity. No adoption of any > "physics of the absolute frame" and the first two statements make it > pretty clear that there is simply no need for any absolute frame. > > You really need to take Wormley's advice. You need to learn special > relativity. Obviously you don't really understand it. > > >> >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. > > Those two sentences contradict each other. Anyway, that's irrelevant, > since your claim "only the absolute frame have those properties" is > false, SR states that all inertial frames have those properties. > > > 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. > > Give me an instance of inertial relative motion where one observer > observes the clock of another observer running faster. (SR, not GR > examples) The absolute frame is space and motion in it is defined by the frame of light or the speed limit. Motion and absolute space are unified. Flow of energy through space is an absolute with a limit. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 18 Apr 2010 01:14
On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> 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. Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > Ken Seto |