SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 08:57 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?
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 09:00 On Apr 21, 10:53 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/21/10 9:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Hey idiot....if they set the GPS clock to run 52 us/day running fast > > then they would have to redefine the GPS second to have more than (N > > +4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > > Ken Seto > > Actually the second needs no redefinition at all. Time dilation > slows time itself... not units of measure. Sure they had to redefine the GPS second to make it synchronizes with the ground continuously. Ken Seto > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clockshttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 09:14 On Apr 21, 12:39 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 20, 1:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> Maybe you can tell us what it is about this absolute frame you keep > >> talking about that makes it special, and thus "absolute". > >Hey idiot I already told you that the absolute frame have the > >following special properties: > >1. The speed of light is isotropic c. > >2. a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running clock in the > >universe. > >3. a meter stick in the absolute frame is the longest meter stick in > >the universe. > >Einstein claimed these special p4roperties of the absolute frame for > >every ineertial observer and that's why the laws of physics for every > >inertial frame are the same. > > Hey, fool, I didn't ask what your absolute frame has in common with every > inertial frame, I asked what's _different_ about it. In other words, > what special laws of physics apply to it, that makes it special, and > thus absolute. Hey idiot....every inertial frame adopts the special properties of the absolute frame.....so there is no difference between an inertial frame and the absolute frame. As it turns out the adoptation of the laws of physics of the absolute frame makes the laws of physics in every inertial frame incomplete. In real life every inertial observer is also in a state of absolute motion and thus he cannot claim exclusively that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. In order to complete the laws of physics in every inertial frame he must include the possibility that his clock is running slower than the observed clock. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 09:32 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 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. 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 -
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 09:34
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. >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 - |