SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 25 Apr 2010 09:21 On Apr 24, 8:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:19 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 11:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 10:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. > > > > > No idiot....it is not true for every clock. If A is predicted to run > > > > faster than B then B must predict that A is running slower than A. > > > > No, Ken, that is not the case. I realize that this what makes sense to > > > you, but it is not the case. Your common sense is telling you a lie. > > > > This is really basic stuff, and you're stuck on it. > > > No....when you compare two clocks A and B the following two > > possibilities exist: > > 1. A runs faster than B then B runs slower than A. > > 2. B runs fasdter than B then A runs slower than B. > > There is no way that A runs faster than B and at the same time B runs > > faster than A. > > Yes, there is, Ken. You are taking this comparison to be an absolute, > frame-independent statement. It is not. There are lots of physics > comparisons where the relationships between two objects reverse when > you switch a reference frame. These are simple things that have been > noted by physicists ever since Galileo, four hundred years ago. > > I will give you a simple example where a relationship changes between > two objects, depending on the reference frame. The relationship is > "moving faster than", and we'll compare two cars, a Buick and a Dodge, > as they are seen by two observers. > Tom is in a red pickup truck and he looks out his window and he sees > the Buick and the Dodge. In Tom's reference frame, the Buick is moving > at 30 mph (relative to Tom) and the Dodge is moving at 10 mph > (relative to Tom). In Tom's frame, the Buick is moving faster than the > Dodge. > Sally is in a blue Corvette and she looks out her window and she sees > the same Buick and the Dodge. In Sally's reference frame, the Buick is > moving at 5 mph (relative to Sally) and the Dodge is moving at 25 mph > (relative to Sally). In Sally's frame, the Dodge is moving faster than > the Buick. Hey idiot we are talking about the actual rate of accumulation of clock seconds on each clock which is frame independent....you example of speed is frame dependent. Why do you keep on trying to stray away from the actual discusion by giving stupid and irrelevant examples?? Ken Seto > > It is a 5th grade puzzle to figure out how to draw all this on the > chalkboard so that all these statements are true. > > But the important thing to note is that in Tom's frame, the Buick is > moving faster than the Dodge, and in Sally's frame, the Dodge is > moving faster than the Buick. > > Since this can be drawn on the chalkboard, it cannot possibly be a > logical contradiction. Both statements are absolutely correct. If you > don't know how to draw this on the chalkboard, you could try asking a > 5th grader to help you. > > So it is entirely possible that in A's frame, the A clock is faster > than the B clock, and in B's frame, the B clock is faster than the A > clock. Both statements are absolutely correct, and there is no logical > contradiction. > > > > > > > These conclusions are based on the GPS clock compared to the ground > > > > clock. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is running > > > > fast by a factor of 38 us/day. From the GPS point of view the ground > > > > clock is approx. 38us/day running slow. > > > > The GPS is not an example of this, because they are not two clocks > > > moving INERTIALLY with respect to each other. > > > Surw it is a good example. The SR effect is calculated with SR > > equations. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the > > GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the GPS clock point of > > view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. > > No, Ken, you have this wrong. > > > > > > The statement in > > > relativity is NOT that all clocks moving relative to a clock at rest > > > run slow. The statement is that clocks moving INERTIALLY relative to > > > another clock will run slow. The GPS satellite is not an example of > > > this statement and so can't be used to test this statement. > > > There is no inertial frame exists on earth so are you claiming that SR > > is not valid on earth???? > > Sure there are inertial reference frames. It's just that when the > noninertial effects get to be larger than your measurement precision, > you can't treat it as inertial- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 25 Apr 2010 09:28 On Apr 24, 8:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 10:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. Anything that is true > > > > > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > > > > > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > > > > > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > > > > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > > > > > relative to each other. > > > > > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C.. If > > > > > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > > > > > First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame...in > > > > case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a > > > > preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then > > > > from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > > > > > > But it IS true for B and C. > > > > > No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a > > > > factor of gamma. > > > > No, Ken, this is wrong. It is not only predicted that A will run > > > SLOWER than B in B's frame, but it is MEASURED that A does in fact run > > > slower than B in B's frame. > > > No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point > > of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is > > wrong. > > That's a lie, Ken. There are several experiments that have shown this. > It would help if you would actually read and comprehend an > experimental paper or five. Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C.. > > > > > No....B is never run faster than A. This assertion is based on the > > > > bogus SR assertion that B is adopting the laws of physics of the > > > > absolute frame. > > > > No, it is not an empty assertion. It is an experimentally demonstrated > > > FACT. > > > No such experimental fact available. > > That's a lie, Ken. SR is backed by experimental facts, including this > one. > > > There is such SR assertion and > > assertion is not a valid arguement. > > Denial of documented experimental results is also not a valid > argument, Ken. It's up to you to read up on it more. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > You can deny reality all you want, but reality does not conform to > > > your common sense, Ken. > > > > What your common sense is telling you is a LIE, Ken, and you have to > > > force yourself to abandon it. It's the only way you'll start to make > > > sense of what is actually OBSERVED in fact. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > In the frame where C is at rest, C is running faster than A and B.. > > > > > Since this property is also true for B and C, then it can't be that A > > > > > is preferred in any way. But neither is B, and neither is C. > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > Then you are wrong, because it IS so. Measured. Whether it jives with > > > > > your common sense or not. > > > > > > Here's the lesson for you, Ken. If a measurement conflicts with your > > > > > common sense, then it is time to DROP your common sense, because your > > > > > common sense must obviously be telling you a lie. > > > > > > > It is more likely > > > > > > that you have a naive understanding of current physics.:-) > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > It doesn't do any good to splutter, "But my definitions are just as > > > > > > > valid for all those terms as the ones physicists use. I just reject > > > > > > > the physics definitions, and use mine instead because they are valid > > > > > > > definitions to me." If you do this, you might as well be speaking > > > > > > > Japanese. No one will understand what you're talking about. > > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: PD on 25 Apr 2010 17:22 On Apr 25, 8:21 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 8:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:19 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 11:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 10:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > > > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. > > > > > > No idiot....it is not true for every clock. If A is predicted to run > > > > > faster than B then B must predict that A is running slower than A.. > > > > > No, Ken, that is not the case. I realize that this what makes sense to > > > > you, but it is not the case. Your common sense is telling you a lie.. > > > > > This is really basic stuff, and you're stuck on it. > > > > No....when you compare two clocks A and B the following two > > > possibilities exist: > > > 1. A runs faster than B then B runs slower than A. > > > 2. B runs fasdter than B then A runs slower than B. > > > There is no way that A runs faster than B and at the same time B runs > > > faster than A. > > > Yes, there is, Ken. You are taking this comparison to be an absolute, > > frame-independent statement. It is not. There are lots of physics > > comparisons where the relationships between two objects reverse when > > you switch a reference frame. These are simple things that have been > > noted by physicists ever since Galileo, four hundred years ago. > > > I will give you a simple example where a relationship changes between > > two objects, depending on the reference frame. The relationship is > > "moving faster than", and we'll compare two cars, a Buick and a Dodge, > > as they are seen by two observers. > > Tom is in a red pickup truck and he looks out his window and he sees > > the Buick and the Dodge. In Tom's reference frame, the Buick is moving > > at 30 mph (relative to Tom) and the Dodge is moving at 10 mph > > (relative to Tom). In Tom's frame, the Buick is moving faster than the > > Dodge. > > Sally is in a blue Corvette and she looks out her window and she sees > > the same Buick and the Dodge. In Sally's reference frame, the Buick is > > moving at 5 mph (relative to Sally) and the Dodge is moving at 25 mph > > (relative to Sally). In Sally's frame, the Dodge is moving faster than > > the Buick. > > Hey idiot we are talking about the actual rate of accumulation of > clock seconds on each clock which is frame independent....you example > of speed is frame dependent. Why do you keep on trying to stray away > from the actual discusion by giving stupid and irrelevant examples?? You cannot say whether actual rate of accumulation of clock seconds is frame independent or not on the basis of common sense or logic alone. You need to look at experimental results. Your assertion that is is frame-independent is not an argument and it is counter to ample experimental evidence. Denying experimental evidence that is on record is a pointless venture. You were trying to make an argument on LOGICAL grounds that only one relationship can be true: Either A is greater than B, or B is greater than A. Well, I've just given you a clear case where it is true that A is greater than B *and* B is greater than A. (The speed of the Buick is greater than the speed of the Buick, and the speed of the Buick is greater than the speed of the Dodge.) It is easy to draw this on the chalkboard so that this happens. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the logical argument that only one relationship can be true, since here is a case where both relationships are true. Finally, since it's obvious even to you that this can happen for speeds, you claim it is not possible for clock rates. Why you would make this blank assertion that is true in one case and not in the other, is just a mystery to me, Ken. How do you KNOW, other than just relying on your common sense, which is unreliable? > > Ken Seto > > > > > It is a 5th grade puzzle to figure out how to draw all this on the > > chalkboard so that all these statements are true. > > > But the important thing to note is that in Tom's frame, the Buick is > > moving faster than the Dodge, and in Sally's frame, the Dodge is > > moving faster than the Buick. > > > Since this can be drawn on the chalkboard, it cannot possibly be a > > logical contradiction. Both statements are absolutely correct. If you > > don't know how to draw this on the chalkboard, you could try asking a > > 5th grader to help you. > > > So it is entirely possible that in A's frame, the A clock is faster > > than the B clock, and in B's frame, the B clock is faster than the A > > clock. Both statements are absolutely correct, and there is no logical > > contradiction. > > > > > > These conclusions are based on the GPS clock compared to the ground > > > > > clock. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is running > > > > > fast by a factor of 38 us/day. From the GPS point of view the ground > > > > > clock is approx. 38us/day running slow. > > > > > The GPS is not an example of this, because they are not two clocks > > > > moving INERTIALLY with respect to each other. > > > > Surw it is a good example. The SR effect is calculated with SR > > > equations. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the > > > GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the GPS clock point of > > > view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. > > ... > > read more »
From: PD on 25 Apr 2010 17:26 On Apr 25, 8:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 8:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 10:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > > > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. Anything that is true > > > > > > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > > > > > > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > > > > > > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > > > > > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > > > > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > > > > > > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > > > > > > First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame....in > > > > > case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a > > > > > preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then > > > > > from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > > > > > > > But it IS true for B and C. > > > > > > No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a > > > > > factor of gamma. > > > > > No, Ken, this is wrong. It is not only predicted that A will run > > > > SLOWER than B in B's frame, but it is MEASURED that A does in fact run > > > > slower than B in B's frame. > > > > No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point > > > of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is > > > wrong. > > > That's a lie, Ken. There are several experiments that have shown this. > > It would help if you would actually read and comprehend an > > experimental paper or five. > > Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A > and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the > same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in just this fashion, and that is just one example. Ken, it would help if you would READ the references that have been given to you, which may mean taking yourself to a library. That is where you will find the experimental documentation. I don't know why you expect a full explanation of them here, just because you can't motivate yourself to get out of your chair. Are you helpless? > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C. > > > > > > No....B is never run faster than A. This assertion is based on the > > > > > bogus SR assertion that B is adopting the laws of physics of the > > > > > absolute frame. > > > > > No, it is not an empty assertion. It is an experimentally demonstrated > > > > FACT. > > > > No such experimental fact available. > > > That's a lie, Ken. SR is backed by experimental facts, including this > > one. > > > > There is such SR assertion and > > > assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > Denial of documented experimental results is also not a valid > > argument, Ken. It's up to you to read up on it more. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > You can deny reality all you want, but reality does not conform to > > > > your common sense, Ken. > > > > > What your common sense is telling you is a LIE, Ken, and you have to > > > > force yourself to abandon it. It's the only way you'll start to make > > > > sense of what is actually OBSERVED in fact. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > In the frame where C is at rest, C is running faster than A and B. > > > > > > Since this property is also true for B and C, then it can't be that A > > > > > > is preferred in any way. But neither is B, and neither is C. > > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > > Then you are wrong, because it IS so. Measured. Whether it jives with > > > > > > your common sense or not. > > > > > > > Here's the lesson for you, Ken. If a measurement conflicts with your > > > > > > common sense, then it is time to DROP your common sense, because your > > > > > > common sense must obviously be telling you a lie. > > > > > > > > It is more likely > > > > > > > that you have a naive understanding of current physics.:-) > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > It doesn't do any good to splutter, "But my definitions are just as > > > > > > > > valid for all those terms as the ones physicists use. I just reject > > > > > > > > the > > ... > > read more »
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Apr 2010 23:58
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. Why not answer the guy's question rather than insult him? Show a quote from any book on SR which says every inertial reference frame takes on the property of the absolute frame. Heck, just show a quote from any book on SR that simply states an absolute frame does exist. |