SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Apr 2010 10:50 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? 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: Sam Wormley on 21 Apr 2010 10:53 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. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Apr 2010 12:39 kenseto <kenseto(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.
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Apr 2010 14:44 Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> writes: >On 4/20/10 12:28 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On the other hand, the satellite will see the ground clock as running >> slow, by 45 us (GR) + 7uS (SR) = ~52uS. However, the only ground clocks >> the satellite cares about are programming signals from the agency that >> maintains them. I'm sure they're set 52uS fast to correct for those >> effects. > GR is sufficient: See Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks >http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html Are you saying SR effects can be ignored when the observer on a GPS satellite measures a signal frequency of an Earthbound source?
From: Peter Webb on 23 Apr 2010 19:58
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:6bd1eb9b-8f5b-4c14-8b76-5f0bad91b749(a)o24g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... On Apr 23, 10:04 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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. Hey idiot can't you think for yourself? When an inertial observer claims the properties of the absolute frame he is using the absolute frame to do physics. ___________________________ Its not a question of "thinking for yourself". You made a claim about what SR "says". This is a simple matter of checking any book on SR and actually seeing what it "says". None of them that I have read substantiates your claim. So either provide some evidence of where some book on SR says what you claim, or admit that SR doesn't say what you claim. |