SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 17:16 On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time.. > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > readings on the observed clocks. > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so either way... > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that bonobos are not more closely related to chimps than chimps are to humans. If so, kindly point out the error in this reference: http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391HumanMacroEvol.htm > If so, kindly point out the error in these references: > > << * invariance with respect to time translation gives > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > Sue... > > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 17:35 On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > > readings on the observed clocks. > ============== > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. > > He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the > discussion at hand, so either way... > > ============== > > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? > > No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, Thank you. If Ken has some other basis to assume "universal time" I am sure he will convey it but there are some widely accepted symmetries in physics that support his "assertion" and outside of kook-land, the home of the perpetual motion, are seldom questioned. << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy Sue... > since it has nothing > whatsoever to do with the discussion. > > You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that bonobos are not more > closely related to chimps than chimps are to humans. If so, kindly > point out the error in this reference:http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391HumanMacroE... > > > If so, kindly point out the error in these references: > > > << * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > > Sue... > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 17:48 On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > > > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > > > readings on the observed clocks. > > ============== > > > > > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > > > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > > > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. > > > He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the > > discussion at hand, so either way... > > ============== > > > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? > > > No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, > > Thank you. If Ken has some other basis to assume > "universal time" I am sure he will convey it but > there are some widely accepted symmetries in physics > that support his "assertion" and outside of > kook-land, the home of the perpetual motion, are > seldom questioned. If by widely accepted symmetries you mean the conservation of energy, I don't know where you ever got the notion that absolute time had anything to do with the invariance of a physical law with respect to time translation. Was it the fact that they both contained the word "time"? Since Noether's theorem has nothing to do with, nor implies anything about, absolute time, it would be hard to imagine how Noether's theorem would be supportive of it. At this point, I expect you to sniff, repost the extract of the link, and mutter something about it speaking for itself. It in fact does speak for itself, but it's not saying the same thing you're saying. At all. > > << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to > gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, > by just analyzing the various transformations that would > make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: > > * the invariance of physical systems with respect > to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws > of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives > the law of conservation of linear momentum; > * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law > of conservation of angular momentum; > * invariance with respect to time translation gives > the well-known law of conservation of energy >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > Sue... > > > since it has nothing > > whatsoever to do with the discussion. > > > You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that bonobos are not more > > closely related to chimps than chimps are to humans. If so, kindly > > point out the error in this reference:http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391HumanMacroE... The above about bonobos is just as closely related to absolute time. Perhaps you should bookmark this one and make constant referrals to it. > > > > If so, kindly point out the error in these references: > > > > << * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy > > > > Sue... > > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 19:13 On Mar 26, 5:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 5:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 26, 4:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 4:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Sigh......absolute time is the only time that exists. A clock second > > > > > > in the observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. > > > > > > This amount of absolute time is represented by different clock > > > > > > readings on the observed clocks. > > > ============== > > > > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > > > > Ken seems to say relatively moving air marshals > > > > (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads > > > > (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. > > > > He may or may not say that. It's completely irrelevant to the > > > discussion at hand, so either way... > > > ============== > > > > > Are you arguing contrary to that notion? > > > > No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, > > > Thank you. If Ken has some other basis to assume > > "universal time" I am sure he will convey it but > > there are some widely accepted symmetries in physics > > that support his "assertion" and outside of > > kook-land, the home of the perpetual motion, are > > seldom questioned. > > If by widely accepted symmetries you mean the conservation of energy, > I don't know where you ever got the notion that absolute time had > anything to do with the invariance of a physical law with respect to > time translation. Ken wrote in this thread: "The reason why the GPS clock is in synch with the Ground clock at all time is because the rate of passage of absolute time is frame independent. " PD agreed in this thread: relatively moving air marshals (1 per aeroplane) will NOT have to adjust powder loads (joule ==> gram) to effect equal "knock down" force to a hijacker. PD wrote: No, I'm not arguing contrary to that notion, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Either you have some magic gunpowder that materialises for Ken's argument but not for Noether's theorem or or you have some new semantic games to play. Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1 of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation" that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.>> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > Was it the fact that they both contained the word > "time"? > > Since Noether's theorem has nothing to do with, nor implies anything > about, absolute time, it would be hard to imagine how Noether's > theorem would be supportive of it. > > At this point, I expect you to sniff, repost the extract of the link, > and mutter something about it speaking for itself. It in fact does > speak for itself, but it's not saying the same thing you're saying. At > all. I wouldn't want to disappoint you. ==> It speaks for itself. <== << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy Sue...
From: eric gisse on 26 Mar 2010 22:23
kenseto wrote: [...] > Hey idiot.... Since you think everyone here is an idiot, why don't you post some place else? 15 years and nobody's convinced. Give up. [snip repeated drivel] |