SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 19 Apr 2010 14:29 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >Right....the absolute frame is no longer needed after every inertial >observer adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame. Notice that >Einstein did not deny the existence of the absolute frame. Notice that Einstein never said anything like "the absolute frame is no longer needed after every inertial observer adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame." He simply said it's not needed. At all, whatsoever. Period.
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 14:33 On Apr 19, 2:08 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 18, 12:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> 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 the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is > >approximately 7 us/day running fast. > > Wrong. There is a GR (not SR) effect that causes the ground clock to see > the satellite clock as running fast, but the SR effect (which is smaller) > causes it to run a little slower. As far as the GPS satellite is > concerned, both the SR and GR effects both cause the ground clock to run > slower. Wrong...from the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast and the GR effect is approx. 45 us / day running slow and the cobined effect is approx. 38 us/day running slow. Ken Seto > > Note that in another post, I explicitly asked to not include GR effects. > > : Give me an instance of inertial relative motion where one observer > : observes the clock of another observer running faster. (SR, not GR > : examples)
From: Michael Moroney on 19 Apr 2010 14:37 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 18, 5:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> SR needs no "absolute" reference frames. Seto, do you know the >> difference between inertial reference frames and non-inertial >> reference frames? >Hey idiot we are talking about the differences between an inertial >frame and an absolute frame. Well, consider this: SR states that all inertial frames have the same physics. An absolute frame, by definition, has some law of physics that is identifiably different in it. Therefore, it cannot be the same as other inertial frames. Therefore the absolute frame, if it exists, must be non-inertial.
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 14:54 On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > I have already, Ken, in this thread. I characterized how, in inertial > > reference frames, the Newtonian laws of mechanics and the laws of > > electrodynamics hold. I also described how the laws of physics would > > be different in an absolute reference frame. > > So what are the laws of physics of the absolute frame? That depends on the physical model that supports an absolute reference frame. For example, physical aether models make the laws of electrodynamics in the absolute frame different than they are in any frame moving relative to the absolute reference frame. Commonly, the value c disappears from the laws of electrodynamics and gets replaced by terms involving c-vs and c-vr. However, this is not observed in nature, despite looking for it, and laws of electrodynamics involving those absolute reference terms do not match experiment for ANY frame. This is where it would be useful to READ something on electrodynamics, Ken, so you can see where this comes from. > > >The properties that YOU > > think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those > > are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. > > So are you saying that the speed of light in the absolute frame is not > isotropic? I don't think so. If there were an absolute reference frame, then yes indeed, the speed of light could not be isotropic in both inertial frames and in the absolute reference frame. It would have to be one or the other, but not both. This means that if we had a model where the speed of light were presumed to be isotropic in the absolute reference frame, then it would HAVE TO be the case that the speed of light is not isotropic in inertial reference frames, which is counter to experiment. If we then presume that the speed of light is isotropic in inertial reference frames, as matches experimental observation, then it would HAVE TO be anisotropic in the absolute reference frame. By DEFINITION, the laws of physics are different in the absolute reference frame. If they are not different in that frame, then it is not the absolute reference frame. > > > > > Since we have found no reference frame in which the laws of physics > > are different than what they are in inertial reference frames, > > That's because every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the > absolute frame. No, Ken, that would make the laws of physics in the inertial frame the SAME as what they are in the absolute frame. By definition, the laws of physics are DIFFERENT in the absolute reference frame than they are in the inertial reference frame. > > > in a > > manner that singles out a velocity with respect to an absolute > > reference, we have no evidence for an absolute reference frame at all, > > despite searching for one experimentally. > > Some past experiments such as the photoelectric and the double slit > experiments detected absolute motion. No, they did not. In order for you to make a statement like that, it is necessary for the results of those experiments to be INCONSISTENT with the lack of absolute motion, not just consistent with the presence of it. Neither experiment is inconsistent with the lack of absolute motion. > > >In special relativity, the > > absolute reference frame is explicitly said not to exist. > > SR gives the wrong interpretation. You can't interpret experimental facts to say "not A" when they are consistent with "A". > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 16:25
On Apr 20, 10:09 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 19, 2:26 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> >In case it's a typo....of there is no longer a need for an absolute > >> >frame after every inertial observer claims the exclusive properties of > >> >an absolute frame. > > >> That's pretty stupid. > >I agree but that's what SR claims > > No, it doesn't. It's what you claim SR claims. SR makes no such claim. > That's why I called your claim stupid. > > >>It's like saying that I have no need for any house > >> key to get into my house after I use my house key to unlock the door. The > >> fact remains, if the door was locked, you do need the key. > >I agree but that's what SR claims. > > No, it doesn't. It's what you claim SR claims. SR makes no such claim. > > >>In contrast, > >> Einstein states the equivalent that there are no locks on the house at > >> all. No key is *ever* needed at any time. > >No Einstein said that after you open the door with the key there is no > >longer a need for the key. > > No, he doesn't. Give me a reference where he states that you need an > absolute frame adopt its properties and then no longer need it. > You can't. > > > > >> Anyway, Einstein simply said there was no need for any sort of absolute > >> frame. Not "no need for an absolute frame after using the properties of an > >> absolute frame", he said No need for the absolute frame. Period. No need > >> at all. > >Wrong....the laws of physics of every inertial frame are the laws of > >physics of the absolute frame. If you disagree with this statement you > >need to provide us with the differences in the laws of physics between > >an inertial frame and an absolute frame. > > How can I describe the difference between something and something that > does not exist? What's the difference between a rabbit and the Easter > Bunny? > > OK, here it goes. An inertial frame is a frame that describes motion and > interactions without any fictitious forces. All inertial frames are in > constant motion (no acceleration) with respect to each other. > An absolute frame is pink with purple polkadots and is invisible. It is > soft and fluffy with razor-sharp teeth. It has magical powers on the > third Tuesday of every month, except during a full moon. > > >> I'll give you a fourth chance to prove me wrong. 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. > >You can't give me a reference where Einstein said that the absolute > >frame doesn't exist. > > Just as I thought. You can't give any reference where Einstein claims > any absolute frame exists. That's because it is you who created the idea > that an absolute frame exists in SR, not Einstein. Space is the absolute frame for energy flow. High energy flow involves gamma math for slowing rate. Mitch Raemsch |