SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 15:50 On Apr 22, 1:30 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/19/10 1:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > I didn't say that an inertial frame or a non-inertial frame is an > > absolute frame. I said that every inertial frame claims that laws of > > phyiscs of the absolute frame. > > > Ken Seto > > No--In inertial reference frames--as has already been > shown to the first order of small quantities, the same > laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for > all frame of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good. So are you saying that the same laws of electrodynamics and optics are not valid for an absolute frame? I don't think so. Ken Seto > > Nothing in this definition requires absolute anything. > Seto--You have one big misconception and you brain is not > capable of understanding your error.
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 15:50 On Apr 22, 2:41 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 19, 12:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 18, 4:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/18/10 10:11 AM, 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? > > > > > > > Since there is no "absolute" reference frame, we have no idea (and > > > > > > neither do you) of what you are obsessed with. Whether a body is > > > > > > in motion or at rest depends strictly on the point of view of the > > > > > > observer. > > > > > > NO....there is an absolute frame. The laws of physics of the absolute > > > > > frame is adopted by every inertial observer an dthat's why all > > > > > inertial frame have the same laws of physics. > > > > > No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference > > > > frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. > > > > assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > That's correct, Ken, and what you assert are the properties of an > > absolute frame is not a valid argument... > > Wrong.....what I wrote are the exclusive properties of an absolute > frame. I'm sorry, Ken, but what you wrote as the exclusive properties of an absolute frame are what you made up out of your own head. This is not what an absolute frame means in physics. It may well mean what you say it means in your own head, but that doesn't have anything to do with physics. Just because you assert it doesn't make it so. The properties of an absolute frame are documented and it's what I told you already. If you need proof of what I've said, I'd be happy to point you to some references where you can read the documentation. > The fact that every inertial observer adopts them as the > properties of his frame does not invalidate them to be the properties > of an absolute frame. What invalidates them as properties of the absolute frame is that this term is already used in physics to mean something completely different than what you say it means. Just because you assert them to be the properties of the absolute frame does not make it so. > > > > > What an absolute frame in physics is, is documented in black and white > > in several books I can recommend to you. > > All the book written so far gave the wrong interpretation for the > properties of an absolute frame. Ken, Ken, Ken. This is the problem, you see. You use terms that are already in use in physics, and which have very different meanings. You do not understand the meanings of the terms, and so you make something up. Then when it is pointed out that the terms do not mean what you think they mean, you insist that all the books are wrong, and that what you've made up in your head is the right thing. All you're doing is denying reality, and substituting your own fantasy. This is called psychosis. For fifteen years, people have been begging you to learn the meaning of words as used in physics so that you stand a chance of 1) understanding the physics and 2) conversing coherently with physicists. You have steadfastly refused to do this, preferring to make things up when you don't understand them. To insist on this foolish path for fifteen years is just ludicrous. > > Ken Seto > > > This removes the matter > > completely from argument. If you disbelieve what I tell you, then look > > it up. If you don't want to look it up, and would rather believe what > > you want to believe, and you expect people to convince you by > > argument, then you will always remain ignorant of what physics says. > > Some things are just documented fact, and the way to be convinced is > > to look up the documentation of those facts. Period. End of story. > > > It's your choice, Ken. You can live in your fantasy world, or you can > > reconnect with the real world. Your choice. > > > > >You are > > > > simply mistaken about that. "Absolute reference frame" has a very > > > > specific meaning in physics, and it is not the meaning you attribute > > > > to the term. > > > > > > - 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: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 15:52 On 4/22/10 2:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/10 1:29 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> I didn't say that an inertial frame or a non-inertial frame is an >>> absolute frame. I said that every inertial frame claims that laws of >>> phyiscs of the absolute frame. >> >>> Ken Seto >> >> No--In inertial reference frames--as has already been >> shown to the first order of small quantities, the same >> laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for >> all frame of reference for which the equations of mechanics >> hold good. > > So are you saying that the same laws of electrodynamics and optics are > not valid for an absolute frame? I don't think so. > > Ken Seto > >> >> Nothing in this definition requires absolute anything. >> Seto--You have one big misconception and you brain is not >> capable of understanding your error. > I've been telling you all along that the idea of absolute frame is nonsense and is not required to do physics.
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 15:53 On Apr 22, 1:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/22/10 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 10:50 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/21/10 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> 2. a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running clock in the > >>> universe. > > >> So... how come a guy falling into a black hole (and using a really > >> good telescope) sees most of the clock in the rest of the universe > >> speeding up faster and faster and faster? > > > There is no such thing as a black hole. Even if there is the guy > > falling into the black hole is not in a state of absolute rest and > > thus he is not in the absolute frame. > > >> Seems that is a contradiction to your "clock in the absolute frame > >> is the fastest running clock in the universe". Don't you agree? > > There is a massive black hole in the center of our galaxy, Ken. > Measurements of the gas and the orbital velocities of the nearby > stars peg its mass at at least three million solar masses and it > boundary is very much smaller than the orbit of Mercury, meaning > that all that mass is within its Schwarzschild radius. Sag A* > is a black hole alright, and a big one. It is more appropriate to interpreted that as a high concentration of dark matter (S-Particles) in the center of our galaxy. Ken Seto > > If you were falling in, you would measure the rest of the universe > speeding up and all those clocks would be going faster and faster > and faster!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 15:55
On 4/22/10 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Hey idiot....the ground clock doesn't have to set 52 us fast. They off > set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation before > launch. This redefinition of the GPS second makes the GPS clock > continuously synchronizes with the ground clock. Hey Ken--the received second from GPS satellite clocks have the same duration and seconds from ground clocks. In fact GPS is an excellent infrastructure to disseminate accurate time world-wide. |