SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 18 Apr 2010 17:05 On Apr 18, 9:47 am, 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. 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. Space is the absolute frame for motion. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 18 Apr 2010 20:50 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:71cc63e6-d036-43e9-9c85-a1716793e0b7(a)22g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... 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 > _________________________________________ Do you deny that horses have the same number of legs as Unicorns?
From: BURT on 18 Apr 2010 21:05 On Apr 18, 5:50 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:71cc63e6-d036-43e9-9c85-a1716793e0b7(a)22g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... > 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 > > > > _________________________________________ > Do you deny that horses have the same number of legs as Unicorns?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Motion is detactable at its onset. Acceleration creates speed that can be measured by energy fluctuating in its weight in the opposing direction. Motion is detectable at its creation and also when it is canceled. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 19 Apr 2010 02:14 kenseto wrote: > 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? ....do you actually think the words that you type have meaning? > > Ken Seto >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 09:27
On Apr 18, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 11:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Yes, I deny that. The laws of physics in the absolute frame are > DIFFERENT than they are in inertial reference frames. That's what > distinguishes the absolute rest frame. That's what it means. Then why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |