SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Apr 2010 14:36 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 26, 1:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> >> So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of >> >> some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows? >> >Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. >> >> OK, it is here that you simply don't understand SR at all. >OK it is you whodon't understand SR, If you keep trying to include some absolute/preferred frame in SR, when Einstein explicitly stated that SR had no use for any absolute frame, it's quite clear you don't understand what he had to say, and don't understand SR. Get a clue from the name: Theory of RELATIVITY. >All relative motions are born from individual motions. Which are more relative motions. Why do you insist on some absolute frame? All the math involving any two frames A and B only involve the velocity difference between A and B. For example, if A and B have relative velocity of .943c, A will see B with a gamma of 3, and B will see A with a gamma of 3, and A will see B's clock running at 1/3 speed, and B will see A's clock as running at 1/3 speed.
From: PD on 28 Apr 2010 14:57 On Apr 28, 1:13 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 26, 1:24 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> > The anwers are in every text book as > >> >follows: > > >> [no snipping of any list of books that state every inertial reference > >> frame takes on the property of some absolute frame] > > >> >What this mean is that every SR observer calims the preferred > >> >properties of an absolute frame. > > >> You didn't answer the question. You didn't list one single book that > >> states every inertial reference frame takes on the property of an > >> absolute frame. All you did was repeat your incorrect assertation. > >Hey idiot the properties claimsed by every inertial observer are the > >exclusive properties of the preferred frame. Whe a clock is the > >fastest running clock in the universe it is a preferred clock or a > >clock is in a state of absolute rest. > > So why not give a list of books that state every inertial reference > frame takes on the property of some preferred/absolute frame? It's > because you can't. That's because there are no such books. And > that's because the whole bit about taking on the properties of some > mythical preferred frame exists only in your own mind and nowhere > else. In fact, as we all know, Einstein said he had no use for any > absolute frame and would disregard it. > > Also, how could any frame be preferred by claiming to be the fastest > clock (ignoring GR effects) when *every* inertial frame makes the same > claim (every inertial frame sees the clock in every other inertial frame > as running slower) ? Ken thinks in simple terms. To him, when he sees the sentence "All clocks moving relative to an inertial clock run slow," this means to him that this inertial clock is the fastest clock in the universe in some absolute sense. He furthermore sees this statement to mean that there is one and only one such clock, because "fastest" as a word means to him a singular attribute. This then is what he believes the word "preferred" must mean when it is used in physics, because of there is ONE of something then to him that is the preferred one. And since he has seen "preferred frame" and "absolute frame" used together, he has guessed that this clock must live in the absolute frame. And since the claim is made by relativity that this is true for ALL clocks, then there is a contradiction in his mind. Summarizing, comparative status leads to singular condition which is then assumed to be what "preferred" means and therefore is tied to the "absolute frame". It's amazing how quickly a string of small errors and misunderstandings can lead one so far astray. PD
From: eric gisse on 28 Apr 2010 18:58 kenseto wrote: [...] Ken, I admire how you can say the same stupid things over and over for 15 years straight and say it each time as if it had merit. Time to killfile this entire thread.
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Apr 2010 22:40 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 28, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Nor did I say anything about muons. >Yes you did....you answered Moroney's question about the life time of >a moving muon compared with the life time of a muon in the lab. by >referring him to the following post that you made: >______________________________________________________________________ >That is incorrect, Ken. There IS actual experimental data that shows >this. >One of the things you are missing in this connection, Ken, due to >your >tiny contact with the experimental literature, is that collider >experiments and fixed target experiments map lots and lots of >reference frames. Suppose you have two particles with relative >velocity v. Very roughly, you can imagine one particle having >velocity >xv and the other particle having velocity (1-x)v, where x is a >variable between 0 and 1. In many fixed target experiments, the value >of x is 1 (so that one particle moves at v and the other at 0). In >some collider experiments, the value of x is 1/2. (So that, again >roughly, both move at v/2.) But if the colliding particles are >hadrons, then the quarks have a momentum distribution inside them, so >that you can map all values of x between 0 and 1. This is more than >enough to verify mutual time dilation. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= >------ Nowhere in PD's response does he mention muons. *I* brought up muons. Perhaps you don't know things like muons aren't hadrons, and muons don't have quarks in them?
From: Michael Moroney on 3 May 2010 18:54
PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> writes: >On May 3, 12:51=A0pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> In fact the GPS refute the mutual >> time dilation concept: from the ground clock point of view the SR >> effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow....and from the GPS >> point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day rinng >> fast. >I've already told you, Ken, that the GPS satellite is not a case of >relative *inertial* motion (within experimental precision), and so one >does not expect mutual time dilation to apply. You seem to forget this >within hours of it being told to you. Again. And again. To be fair to Ken, here he's only mentioning the SR effects (~7us/day) and not the gravitational effects. He still gets it wrong, however, by claiming the satellite sees the clock on the ground station as running fast due to SR when in fact it'll see it as running slow. It's the gravitational well effects (~45uS/day) that reverse like that, not the relative motion effects. Net effect: Ground clock sees satellite running ~45uS fast due to gravity but ~7uS slow due to motion = ~38uS/day fast. Satellite sees ground clock running ~45uS slow due to gravity and ~7uS slow due to motion = ~52uS/day slow. |