SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 23 Apr 2010 09:11 On Apr 23, 1:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/22/10 3:47 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:55 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Hey idiot...that's because the GPS second have N+4.15 periods of Cs > > 133 radiation vs the ground clock second has N periods of Cs 133 > > radiation. > > > Ken Seto > > Um... No, Seto. A second is a second. There are not multiple > definitions for a second. Hey wormy then why did they redeffined the GPS second to have (9,192,631,770 +4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation instead of the standard 9,192,31,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation for a standard clock second? > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clockshttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.... > > Hey Seto, what is the value that Model Mechanics predicts > for observed time dilation of a clock in a orbit > (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 23 Apr 2010 09:20 On Apr 22, 4:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Wormy relative velocity between A and B exists only if the following occur: 1. A moves individually. 2. B moves individually. 3. A moves individually and B moves individually.
From: Peter Webb on 23 Apr 2010 09:23 SR is wrong because it adopts the properties of an absolute frame and then turns around and claim that the absolute frame doesn't exist. _______________________ No, it doesn't. That's your problem; you don't understand what SR says. You should buy a book on it.
From: kenseto on 23 Apr 2010 09:43 On Apr 23, 9:23 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > SR is wrong because it adopts the properties of an absolute frame and > then turns around and claim that the absolute frame doesn't exist. > > _______________________ > > No, it doesn't. That's your problem; you don't understand what SR says. You > should buy a book on it. Yes it does....Every inertial observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.....that is the exclusive property of a preferred frame. It appears that you need to study what SR is really saying. Ken Seto
From: Peter Webb on 23 Apr 2010 10:04
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:722db482-a16c-4242-aea0-178696e0275b(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Apr 23, 9:23 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > SR is wrong because it adopts the properties of an absolute frame and > then turns around and claim that the absolute frame doesn't exist. > > _______________________ > > No, it doesn't. That's your problem; you don't understand what SR says. > You > should buy a book on it. Yes it does....Every inertial observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.....that is the exclusive property of a preferred frame. It appears that you need to study what SR is really saying. ___________________________________ Well, perhaps you would like to provide a quote from any book on Special Relativity which says every inertial reference frame takes on the property of the absolute frame which doesn't exist. |