SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 15:56 On Apr 22, 2:41 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > All the book written so far gave the wrong interpretation for the > properties of an absolute frame. > Ken, suppose I pointed to a zebra and called it a penguin. Then suppose I said that it is a penguin because it exhibits all the properties of a penguin: stripes, four legs, hooves, and a tail. You would laugh at me. Suppose you then pulled out a book and showed me a picture of what we were looking at, and right next to it is the word "zebra", and then you did the same thing with a picture and a label of a penguin, so that I could see the difference. Suppose I then said that all the books written so far gave the wrong interpretation of the properties of penguins. You would not only laugh at me, but you would know that I had lost my mind. Ken, do you really not realize what a fool you have made of yourself? PD
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 15:57 On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:32 am, 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. The properties that YOU > > > > think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those > > > > are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. > > > > No....every inertial frame adopts the special properties of the > > > absolute frame > > > No, Ken, what you say are the properties of the absolute frame are NOT > > the properties of the absolute frame, as that word is used in physics. > > Sorry, you're just mistaken. > > No it is you who is mistaken. In the absolute frame the speed of light > is isotropicc; a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running > clock in the universe and a meter stick in the absolute frame is the > longest meter stick in th euniverse. Thes exclusive preferred > properties are what make the absolute frame unique. No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in physics, and it means something completely different than what you have made up in your own head. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > then you SRians turn around and claim that these > > > special properties of the absolute frame are the exclusive properties > > > of every inertial frame. > > > > Now you are asking what are the special properties of the absolute > > > frame. > > > I'm not asking for what the special properties are. I've told you what > > the special properties are already. > > > > This is much like after your mother gave birth to you and you > > > grow up and claim that your mathe ris not your mother. > > > > > Since we have found no reference frame in which the laws of physics > > > > are different than what they are in inertial reference frames, > > > > Of course...that's because the laws of physics of every inertial frame > > > are adopted from the special laws of physics of the absolute 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. In special relativity, the > > > > absolute reference frame is explicitly said not to exist. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 15:57 On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> 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. > > So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of > some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows? Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. All observed relative motions are born from individual motions as follows: Relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference of their absolute motion along the line joining A and B. Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 16:10 On 4/22/10 2:57 PM, kenseto wrote: > Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. My sister and I are floating toward each other in spacesuits in intergalactic space. Our relative velocity is 0.001 km/s. I say to her, "stats you"? She replies, "Stats me". We pass each other without collision. Our relative velocity is 0.001 km/s. Neither of us claims any motion except with respect to each other at 0.001 km/s.
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 16:25
On Apr 22, 2:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> 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. > > > So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of > > some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows? > > Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. No meaning for YOU. Others are not so limited. You cling to certain concepts because they let YOU understand them. Others are not so limited. > All observed relative > motions are born from individual motions as follows: > Relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference > of their absolute motion along the line joining A and B. > > Ken Seto |