SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 28 Mar 2010 08:19 On Mar 27, 10:27 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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. No...idiot computer absolute time is not coordinate time. The rate of passage of absolute time in independent of motion or observer. An interval of absolute time is represented by different clock readings in different frames. > > 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. except that SR is incomplete. When you comparing two clocks you cannot say that only the observed clock is running slow. IRT says that the observed clock can run slow or fast compared to the observer's clock. > > 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. :-) That's why you are an idiot computer you can't think logically. Ken Seto > > 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...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sue... on 28 Mar 2010 08:35 On Mar 28, 8:19 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 10:27 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No...idiot computer absolute time is not coordinate time. The rate of > passage of absolute time in independent of motion or observer. An > interval of absolute time is represented by different clock readings > in different frames. > > > > > 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. > ============== > except that SR is incomplete. When did you notice that? << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory. >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory See: "Relativity and electromagnetism" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Sue... > When you comparing two clocks you cannot > say that only the observed clock is running slow. IRT says that the > observed clock can run slow or fast compared to the observer's clock. > > > > > 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. :-) > > That's why you are an idiot computer you can't think logically. > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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...- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 28 Mar 2010 08:49 On Mar 27, 9:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. NO....if A is the observer his clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time or 1 second of absolute time....not X amount of absolute time as you said. This amount of absolute time (1 A second) is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock. What this mean is that 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. BTW why did you ignored my post completely? If you plug in gamma=2 you will get the correct answers. > > 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. NO, NO....according to SR 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. Ken Seto > , 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. > 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 > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Mar 2010 09:39 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Mar 27, 9:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(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? 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. >> >> 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. >NO....if A is the observer his clock second represents a specific >amount of absolute time or 1 second of absolute time....not X amount >of absolute time as you said. As I said, X is the conversion factor between absolute time and observed time. If they're the same. X=1.0. > This amount of absolute time (1 A >second) is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second on >the B clock. Here you say X=1/gamma_ab. > What this mean is that 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock >represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A >clock. OK. >BTW why did you ignored my post completely? If you plug in gamma=2 you >will get the correct answers. From that I saw X=0.5, but I did a different approach to get a consistent answer. >> >> 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. >NO, NO....according to SR 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents >the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. Which is what I just said! >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. First, all that makes the "B" frame special, specifically absolute. SR says there are no absolute frames. I also stated the problem so that there were no "special" frames, not even accidentally. Second, if I do the exact same thing swapping A and B, I get the same result, except frame "A" is special, and I do believe you'd say that 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. So.... if 1/2 second on the B clock is the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock, AND if 1/2 second on the A clock is the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the B clock, and we do the math to see how many seconds of absolute time correspond to 1 second on both the A and B clocks, we don't get 2, we get the impossible figure 1/0. So,.... the concept of "absolute time" is internally inconsistent.
From: kenseto on 28 Mar 2010 17:59
On Mar 28, 9:39 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 27, 9:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(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? 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. > > >> 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. > >NO....if A is the observer his clock second represents a specific > >amount of absolute time or 1 second of absolute time....not X amount > >of absolute time as you said. > > As I said, X is the conversion factor between absolute time and observed > time. If they're the same. X=1.0. No there is no conversion factor between absolute time and observed time. The A observer predicts that an interval of absolute time in his frame such as his clock second represented by a clock reading of (1/ gamma_ab second) on the B clock. > > > This amount of absolute time (1 A > >second) is predicted to have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second on > >the B clock. > > Here you say X=1/gamma_ab. > > > What this mean is that 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock > >represents the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A > >clock. > > OK. > > >BTW why did you ignored my post completely? If you plug in gamma=2 you > >will get the correct answers. > > From that I saw X=0.5, but I did a different approach to get a consistent > answer. > > > > >> 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. > >NO, NO....according to SR 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents > >the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the A clock. > > Which is what I just said! > > >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a > >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is > >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock. > >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time. > > First, all that makes the "B" frame special, specifically absolute. No...that does not make the B frame absolute. It only says that the B second will contain a specific amount of absolute time. > SR says there are no absolute frames. I also stated the problem > so that there were no "special" frames, not even accidentally. SR doesn't say no absolute frame. SR says that all frames are equivalent, including the absolute rest frame. That's why every SR observer the absolute rest frame to do calculations. THat's why every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame....that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all th erulers moivng wrt him are contracted. > > Second, if I do the exact same thing swapping A and B, I get the same > result, except frame "A" is special, and I do believe you'd say that > 1/2 clock second on the B clock represents the same amount of absolute > time as 1 second on the A clock. Here's your problem....A will measure B to have different velocity than B will measure A. Why? Because A's clock second contains a different amount of absolute time than B's clock second. That means that: 1/gamma_ab =/= 1/gamma_ba > > So.... if 1/2 second on the B clock is the same amount of absolute time > as 1 second on the A clock, Yes according to the SR observer A. > AND if 1/2 second on the A clock is the same > amount of absolute time as 1 second on the B clock, No B will measure A to have different velocity than .866 c and thus he predicts that B's clock second is repensented by (1/gamma_ba second) on the A clock. Ken Seto and we do the math > to see how many seconds of absolute time correspond to 1 second on both > the A and B clocks, we don't get 2, we get the impossible figure 1/0. > > So,.... the concept of "absolute time" is internally inconsistent.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |