SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 21:22 On Apr 21, 3:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/21/10 1:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > Sam Wormley<sworml...(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.... > > > Are you saying SR effects can be ignored when the observer on a GPS > > satellite measures a signal frequency of an Earthbound source? > > GR encompasses SR, so you don't need both. However some calculations > may be simpler using SR when appropriate.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Motion has two rates. One in linear motion through space; and the other in rotation speed. They both give energy and slow time by the Gamma factor of their speed. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 08:54 On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > Ken. > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is. It is not the > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > word that you just made up the meaning of. ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word "preferred". It there no limit to your stupidity? OTOH, that is expected from an indoctrinated runt of the SRians like you. Ken Seto > > > > > > The meaning given to "absolute reference frame" was established long > > > before you came along and started making stuff up, Ken. > > > Then you better discard those meaning. Why? Because it is wrong. > > No, Ken. The meaning is set up when the term is used first in physics. > You do not have the right to come in and say, "All the meanings of the > words you use in physics are wrong. Everybody should use my meanings > instead, because I like them better." You have the right to invent NEW > words, and give them your own definitions. But you cannot expect to > use terms that ALREADY are in use in physics, and ALREADY have a > specific meaning in physics, and to use them differently with > different meanings -- people will have no idea what you're talking > about, and you will fail to communicate your ideas at all. > > > > > > Your assertions are yours alone. You have no backup. Assertion is not > > > an argument, Ken. Your own words. You are guilty of asserting what is > > > contrary to what is known and documented, and assertion is not an > > > argument. > > > I made no assertion....the fastest running clock in the universe is a > > preferred clock and only a clock in a state of absolute rest can claim > > that. > > That is an assertion on your part. It is NOT CORRECT. > > > > > SR claims thaT FOR EVERY inertial observer. Such claim is valid > > only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion > > than the observer's clock. BTW that's the reason why SR is > > incomplete.....it failed to include the possibility that an observed > > clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > > Ken Seto > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 08:59 On Apr 23, 10:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 7:53 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > ROTFLOL....Failing to make a valid arguement so you trot out your > > > > ridiculus animal analogy. > > > > I agree the animal analogy would make it clear how ridiculous you've > > > been. > > > Anybody who would do that would be out of their mind. > > > Anybody who would do what you've done with physics terms would be out > > > of their mind, too. > > > That much is obvious. > > > > > You can deny all you want....All the properties claimed by every > > > > inertial observer are preferred properties of an absolute frame. > > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Your own words. > > > > What I've said is reality, documented. > > > There is no reality in what you claimed. > > It's in black and white, Ken. It's obvious you don't understand it. > But that doesn't make it not real. Sure it is in black and white alright....A sees B's clock is running slower by a factor of 1/gamma and B sees A's clock is running slower by a factor of 1/gamma. Is that your version of reality? Ken Seto > > > For example: A sees B's clock > > is running slower by a factor of 1/gamma and B sees A's clock is > > running slower by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > You claim that reality is wrong, and the documentation is all wrong. > > > No I claimed that what SR said is wrong. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but the meaning of "preferred frame", "absolute rest > frame", and "inertial frame" preceded SR by a long, long time. You are > debating the meaning of terms in Newtonian physics now. That's been > around since the 1600's. > > > > > > People who claim that reality is wrong, and that all the documentation > > > is wrong, are generally psychotic, Ken, and suffer from a break with > > > reality. > > > 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. > > Your first use of "absolute frame" in the sentence above is the term > as YOU'VE defined it. The second use of "absolute frame" is the term > as PHYSICS has defined it. If you want to know why the claim is made > that the absolute frame doesn't exist, you have to know and accept the > meaning of "absolute frame" as PHYSICS uses it. Otherwise, you won't > know what they're talking about when the claim is made that the > absolute frame doesn't exist. Don't you see that? > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > You may want to stick to your guns, Ken, and remain unconvinced. > > > That's what happens with the delusional. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken, do you really not realize what a fool you have made of yourself? > > > > > > PD- 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 24 Apr 2010 09:02 On Apr 23, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 8:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > No, Ken, that is not the only way. That's the only way YOU understand, > but others are not so limited. So how else can you have relative velocity between A and B???? - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 09:05
On Apr 23, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/23/10 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 1:00 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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? > > They didn't, Ken. That is your misunderstanding. Yes they do.....they redefine the GPS second before launch so that when the GPS is in orbit it will maintain in synch with the ground clock.. You are so stupid wormy. Ken Seto > > 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? |