SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 27 Mar 2010 15:53 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Mar 26, 10:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> Two identical rockets pass each other in otherwise empty space at 0.866 c. >> >> The first rocket's observer sees the second pass at 0.866 c and observes >> that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the first >> rocket, the first observer sees only one second pass on the second rocket. >> >> The second rocket's observer sees the first pass at 0.866 c and observes >> that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the second >> rocket, the second observer sees only one second pass on the first rocket. >> >> How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first >> rocket? >> >> How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the second >> rocket? >Sigh....the rate of passage of absolute time is independent of >relative motion or observers.... You didn't answer the questions. How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first rocket's time? 1 second of the second rocket's time?
From: kenseto on 27 Mar 2010 19:09 On Mar 27, 2:57 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 27, 2:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Mar 27, 11:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 10:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > >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. > > > > > > Two identical rockets pass each other in otherwise empty space at 0.866 c. > > > > > > The first rocket's observer sees the second pass at 0.866 c and observes > > > > > that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the first > > > > > rocket, the first observer sees only one second pass on the second rocket. > > > > > > The second rocket's observer sees the first pass at 0.866 c and observes > > > > > that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the second > > > > > rocket, the second observer sees only one second pass on the first rocket. > > > > > > How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first > > > > > rocket? > > > > > > How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the second > > > > > rocket? > > > > > Sigh....the rate of passage of absolute time is independent of > > > > relative motion or observers....That's why the GPS designers used > > > > absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground clock by > > > > making the redefined GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 > > > > radiation. The redefined GPS second will contain the same amount of > > > > absolute time as the ground clock second which contains N periods of > > > > Cs 133 radiation. I suggest that you read the paper in the following > > > > link to gain more insight into this new concept. > > > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > That is not a relativity theory. Its own violation > > > is stated on page 4. > > > > <<The rate of a clock is dependent on the state > > > of absolute motion of the clock. The higher > > > is the state of absolute motion the slower is > > > its clock rate.>>http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > Hey idiot computer....that's not a violation. > > > > See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity > > > > > Hey idiot...The principle of relativiyt does not apply to the concept > > of absolute time. IOW The PoR is not valid when absolute time is used > > to do calculations. > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments. > >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Hey idiot computer if you read the postulates of IRT are as follows: 1.The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames. 2.The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a light- second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames. 3.The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a rod is different in different frames of reference. 4.The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E- Matrix.Ken Seto Note that when absolute time is used (postulates 3 and 4) the PoR become invalid. Ken Seto > > <<Certain principles of relativity have been widely > assumed in most scientific disciplines. One of the > most widespread is the belief that any law of nature > should be the same at all times; and scientific > investigations generally assume that laws of nature > are the same regardless of the person measuring them. > These sorts of principles have been incorporated into > scientific inquiry at the most fundamental of levels. > > Any principle of relativity prescribes a symmetry > in natural law: that is, the laws must look the > same to one observer as they do to another. According > to a deep theoretical result called > > --> Noether's theorem, <-- > > any such symmetry will also imply a conservation law > alongside. For example, if two observers at different > times see the same laws, then a quantity called energy > will be conserved. In this light, relativity principles > are not just statements about how scientists should write > laws: they make testable predictions about how nature > behaves. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity#Basic_relativity... > > >> * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > So you are leading up to the perpetual motion > machine in your basement? > > Sue... > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > Sue... > > > > > Ken Seto- 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 27 Mar 2010 19:38 On Mar 27, 3:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 26, 10:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > > >> Two identical rockets pass each other in otherwise empty space at 0.866 c. > > >> The first rocket's observer sees the second pass at 0.866 c and observes > >> that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the first > >> rocket, the first observer sees only one second pass on the second rocket. > > >> The second rocket's observer sees the first pass at 0.866 c and observes > >> that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the second > >> rocket, the second observer sees only one second pass on the first rocket. > > >> How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first > >> rocket? > > >> How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the second > >> rocket? > >Sigh....the rate of passage of absolute time is independent of > >relative motion or observers.... > > You didn't answer the questions. How many seconds of "absolute time" > correspond to 1 second of the first rocket's time? 1 second of the > second rocket's time? Sigh.... According to SR: 1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock. 2.Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. According to IRT: 1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock OR this amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ab seconds)on the B clock. 2. Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock OR this amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ba seconds) on the A clock. Ken Seto -
From: Michael Moroney on 27 Mar 2010 21:55 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >> You didn't answer the questions. How many seconds of "absolute time" >> correspond to 1 second of the first rocket's time? =A01 second of the >> second rocket's time? >Sigh.... >According to SR: >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock. >2.Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. >According to IRT: >1. Rocket A's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >reading of (1/gamma_ab second) on the B clock OR this amount of >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ab >seconds)on the B clock. >2. Rocket B's clock second represents a specific amount of absolute >time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock >reading of (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock OR this amount of >absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of (gamma_ba >seconds) on the A clock. OK, you're still unwilling to come up with a number. So, let's solve this problem. Let "X" is the conversion factor between absolute time and "A" time. We define X such that 1 second of "A" time correspond to X seconds of absolute time. We're solving for "X", then once we know "X", we can find the absolute time that corresponds to a second of A and B time. Since "A" sees "B"'s clock running at half its rate, so that 1 second of "B" time corresponds to 2 seconds of "A" time, therefore "B"'s second corresponds to 2X seconds of absolute time. However, "B" sees "A"'s clock running at half its rate, so that 1 second of "A" time corresponds to 2 seconds of "B" time. So, "A"'s second corresponds to 2*(2X) seconds of absolute time, or an A second is 4X seconds of absolute time. But, by definition, 1 A second is equal to X seconds of absolute time. Therefore, it must be true that X = 4X. Solving for X, X=0. But wait! 1 second is thus 0*<absolute time>. If we want to solve for the absolute time, it is 1/0! One divided by zero! "B" time is similar, it is 1/(2*0)! "A" time again is 1/(4*0), but since 4*0 is 0, it becomes 1/0, which, I think, might be equal to the first 1/0. However, I learned in math class "thou shalt not divide by zero". So, I can only conclude that "absolute time" is simply nonsense.
From: Sue... on 27 Mar 2010 22:27
On Mar 27, 7:09 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 2:57 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 27, 2:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 27, 2:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 27, 11:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 26, 10:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > Two identical rockets pass each other in otherwise empty space at 0.866 c. > > > > > > > The first rocket's observer sees the second pass at 0.866 c and observes > > > > > > that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the first > > > > > > rocket, the first observer sees only one second pass on the second rocket. > > > > > > > The second rocket's observer sees the first pass at 0.866 c and observes > > > > > > that its clock runs slow. In fact, for every 2 seconds of the second > > > > > > rocket, the second observer sees only one second pass on the first rocket. > > > > > > > How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the first > > > > > > rocket? > > > > > > > How many seconds of "absolute time" correspond to 1 second of the second > > > > > > rocket? > > > > > > Sigh....the rate of passage of absolute time is independent of > > > > > relative motion or observers....That's why the GPS designers used > > > > > absolute time to synchronize the GPS clock with the ground clock by > > > > > making the redefined GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 > > > > > radiation. The redefined GPS second will contain the same amount of > > > > > absolute time as the ground clock second which contains N periods of > > > > > Cs 133 radiation. I suggest that you read the paper in the following > > > > > link to gain more insight into this new concept. > > > > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > That is not a relativity theory. Its own violation > > > > is stated on page 4. > > > > > <<The rate of a clock is dependent on the state > > > > of absolute motion of the clock. The higher > > > > is the state of absolute motion the slower is > > > > its clock rate.>>http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > Hey idiot computer....that's not a violation. > > > > > See: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity > > > > Hey idiot...The principle of relativiyt does not apply to the concept > > > of absolute time. IOW The PoR is not valid when absolute time is used > > > to do calculations. > > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > Hey idiot computer if you read the postulates of IRT are as follows: > > 1.The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to > measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial > reference frames. > 2.The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a light- > second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all > directions and all inertial frames. > 3.The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the > physical length of a rod is different in different frames of > reference. > 4.The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute > second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different > mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The > speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical > length of a measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E- > Matrix.Ken Seto > > Note that when absolute time is used (postulates 3 and 4) the PoR > become invalid. You seem to have some kind of ether theory that frequently uses the term absolute-time for what the rest of the world calls coordinate-time. So you can use your theory and terms when you solve problems and the rest of us can use our theories and terms when we solve problems. That way you won't have to make any edits and we don't have to learn what a clock-second is. Everyone lives happily ever after. :-) Sue... > > Ken Seto > > > > > <<Certain principles of relativity have been widely > > assumed in most scientific disciplines. One of the > > most widespread is the belief that any law of nature > > should be the same at all times; and scientific > > investigations generally assume that laws of nature > > are the same regardless of the person measuring them. > > These sorts of principles have been incorporated into > > scientific inquiry at the most fundamental of levels. > > > Any principle of relativity prescribes a symmetry > > in natural law: that is, the laws must look the > > same to one observer as they do to another. According > > to a deep theoretical result called > > > --> Noether's theorem, <-- > > > any such symmetry will also imply a conservation law > > alongside. For example, if two observers at different > > times see the same laws, then a quantity called energy > > will be conserved. In this light, relativity principles > > are not just statements about how scientists should write > > laws: they make testable predictions about how nature > > behaves. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity#Basic_relativity... > > > >> * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >>http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > > So you are leading up to the perpetual motion > > machine in your basement? > > > Sue... > > > |