SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 11:11 On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Apr 2010 12:47 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. LET accepts the existence of the aBSOLUTE FRAME AND USE >IT to drive the LET math. For the third time, where did you come up with that? Give us a reference from any of Einstein's writings on SR that accepts the existence of any sort of absolute frame. You can't, because in contrast he states that all inertial frames are equivalent, and there's simply no need for an inertial frame. >> >There is only one absolute frame. >> >> No, there aren't any, according to SR. >Wrong in SR an inertial frame is considered to be an absolute frame. Wrong. Or once again, give a reference that that was created by anyone other than yourself. >> >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. >That's because every inertial observer adopt the laws of physics of >the absolute frame. BTW in order to make every inertial frame obey the >laws of phyiscs of the absolute frame you SRians had to redefine a >meter length in terms of light-second....1 meter= 1/299,792,458 light- >second. Wrong. That was done because the speed of light could be measured more accurately than the length of a platinum bar in Paris. >> > 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 frames, for starters. >> >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. >Assertion is not a valid ARGUEMENT. It's all over the place in Einstein's writings on SR. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant in all inertial reference frames. >> >1. The speed of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. >> >> All inertial frames have that property. >That's because every inertal frame adopts the laws of phyiscs of the >absolute frame. Wrong. It's simply a property of all inertial reference frames, according to SR. >> >2. All the clocks moving wrt the absolute frame are running slower. >> >> All inertial frames have that property. >That's becasue every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the >absolute frame. Wrong. It's simply a property of all inertial reference frames, according to SR. >> >3. All the rulers moving wrt the absolute frame are contracted. >> >> All inertial frames have that property. >That's becasue every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the >absolute frame. Wrong. It's simply a property of all inertial reference frames, according to SR.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Apr 2010 12:50 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. >Hey idiot SR does not say that there is no absolute frame. SR says >that all frames are equivalent, including the absolute frame. You are the idiot, redefining SR to include some sort of absolute frame. I already gave you a reference to Einstein's SR paper (which I notice you didn't respond to) where the *only* references to an absolute frame was stating it was not necessary and would not be used.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Apr 2010 12:54 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >2. An inertial observer will say that some clocks moving wrt him are >running slower than his clock and some are running faster than his >clock. He will also say that the light path length of some rulers >moving wrt him are contracted and the light path length of some rulers >moving wrt him are lengthened compared to the light path length of his >ruler. Describe for us *any* two inertial frames where either a clock in one ticks faster or a ruler is lengthened as seen from the other.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Apr 2010 13:01
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 17, 3:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. >Yes it does....no where in SR says that it doesn't need the laws of >physics of the absolute frame. Absolute space is unnecessary. From http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." Follow Wormley's advice. Learn what SR actually states. It seems that you've been wrong here for some 15 years. |