SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 18 Apr 2010 01:53 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) It takes two rates to synchronize matter clocks. The first rate is slowed by gravity strength. The second rate that slows comes from energy flowing through space. Clocks are two rate in flow forms. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 18 Apr 2010 06:18 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. Hmm. After 15 years of arguing about the subject, do you think you can tell us where you read that SR makes such a claim about some mythical 'absolute frame' or do you need another 15 years to figure that one out? > > Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 10:06 On Apr 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/16/10 10:03 AM, kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: > > > 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 > > You are correct when you write "no inertial frame is the absolute > frame" as there are no absolute reference frame of any kind. A > postulate of special relativity is: > > "...same laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames > of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold > good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which > will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') > to the status of a postulate, ..." Wormy....the PoR says that all frames are equvalent, including the absolute frame. Every inertial observer adopted the laws f physics of the absolute frame to do physics and that's why all inertial frames (including the absolute frame) have the same laws of physics. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 10:10 On Apr 17, 10:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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! Hey wormy then why does SR adopt the laws of phyiscs of the absolute frame? Ken Seto > > 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: whoever on 18 Apr 2010 10:14
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:770a8c0f-8324-4f4d-a2de-8ca9987e2a5c(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/16/10 10:03 AM, kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: >> >> > 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 >> >> You are correct when you write "no inertial frame is the absolute >> frame" as there are no absolute reference frame of any kind. A >> postulate of special relativity is: >> >> "...same laws of >> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames >> of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold >> good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which >> will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') >> to the status of a postulate, ..." > > Wormy....the PoR says that all frames are equvalent, including the > absolute frame. There is no absolute frame > Every inertial observer adopted the laws f physics of > the absolute frame No .. you have it backwards .. there is no absolute frame to refer to the laws of .. whatever frame you may think is absolute has the same physics as any other frame, so it isn't in any way special. > to do physics and that's why all inertial frames > (including the absolute frame) have the same laws of physics. There is no 'absolute frame' .. but yes .. whatever frame you may think is 'absolute' has the same physics as any other frame. There is nothing special about any so-called absolute frame .. hence no reason to call it 'absolute' --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |