SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 29 Mar 2010 17:53 On Mar 29, 5:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >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. > > >> These two sentences contradict each other. First, you say there is no > >> conversion factor, then in the very next sentence, you say the conversion > >> factor is (1/gamma_ab). > >I said that there is no constant X conversion factor as you asserted. > >A's conversion factor is 1/gamma_ab and B's conversion factor is 1/ > >gamma_ba. > > OK so you think they can be different. I don't see how that could ever > possibly be true. If A sees B as moving at velocity V, B seeing A as > moving at any velocity other than -V would throw all physics as we know it > out the window. Particle accelerators, radar, all kinds of things simply > wouldn't work. Anyway, the Michelson-Morley Experiment and all its > followups should have detected our velocity around the sun relative > to this "absolute frame". No you are putting up bogus arguements. Everything will work as before. Each observer will measure V with his clock but the V_a is not the same as V_b because an A second is not equal to a B second. > > > Also you seem to think that the conversion factor is > >converting clock time to absolute time. That is wrong....it is used to > >predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval > >of absolute time (such as a clock second) on the observer's clock. > > Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time > by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by > dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101. No...you already know that the amount of absolute time involved is represented by 1 of A's clock second. That same amount of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma_ab second on the B 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. > > >> >> 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. > > >> If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the > >> conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it > >> has to be special. > >Well that's what SR says....it says that every frame is equivalent > >including the absolute rest frame > > No it doesn't. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any > absolute rest frame whatsoever. That's why they used the word > RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you're going > to have to understand SR first. If SR does not allow for any absolute rest frame then how come the SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame? > > > and that's why every SR observer > >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually > one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute > frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? Yes he does...he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math....it allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. > > > Also that's why every > >SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running > >slow. > > No, that's not true. SR asserts that an observer in any frame will > see the clocks in objects moving relative to that frame as running > slow. Back to my example: A sees his own clock as normal, but sees > B's clock as running slow. B sees his own clock as normal, but sees > A's clock as running slow. That's exactly what I said: Every SR observer assumes that he is in a state of rest and the observed clock is doing the moving. > > >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of > >absolute rest and that's why he says that a clock moving wrt him can > >run slow or fast compare to his clock. > > When has any such thing ever been observed? From the ground clock point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock point of view: the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast compared to the GPS clock. > > >> > 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. > > >> You appear to have confused the phrase "absolute rest frame" and > >> "reference frame". > >No....only the absolute rest observer can claim that all the clocks > >moving wrt him are running slow. Both SR and LET claims the properties > >of the absolute rest frame to derive the math. > > OK, C is stationary in this absolute frame. C's clock runs at the same > rate as absolute time. (correct?) This statement has no meaning. C's clock second will contain a specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is the least amount of absolute time compared to any clock second that is not in a state of absolute rest. > A and B are moving in opposite > directions at v, according to C. C sees A's and B's clocks running slow > by gamma_ca and gamma_cb, which are equal. (Correct?) No it depends on the value of gamma_ca and gamma_cb. > > What velocity does A see B moving at? A will have to use his clock second to measure the velocity of B. >What rate does A see B's clock > run? What velocity does A see C moving at? What rate does A see C's > clock run? According to SR A will see B's clock running at 1/gamma_ab. according to IRT A will see B's clock running at 1/gamma_ab or Gamma_ab > > What velocity does B see A moving at? What rate does B see A's clock > run? What velocity does B see C moving at? What rate does B see C's > clock run? According to SR B will see A's clock running at 1/gamma_ba. according to IRT B will see A's clock running at 1/gamma_ba or Gamma_ba n Seto> >>That's the only way > >> for there to be a consistent conversion from absolute time to observed > >> time in both frames. > >Sigh...you don't convert clock time to absolute time. The observer A > >clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time and this > >amount of absolute time will have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second > >on the B clock. > > Again, if I can convert from absolute time to clock time by multiplying > by 1/gamma_ab, I can find absolute time from clock time by dividing > by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra.
From: BURT on 29 Mar 2010 17:56 On Mar 29, 2:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >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. > > >> These two sentences contradict each other. First, you say there is no > >> conversion factor, then in the very next sentence, you say the conversion > >> factor is (1/gamma_ab). > >I said that there is no constant X conversion factor as you asserted. > >A's conversion factor is 1/gamma_ab and B's conversion factor is 1/ > >gamma_ba. > > OK so you think they can be different. I don't see how that could ever > possibly be true. If A sees B as moving at velocity V, B seeing A as > moving at any velocity other than -V would throw all physics as we know it > out the window. Particle accelerators, radar, all kinds of things simply > wouldn't work. Anyway, the Michelson-Morley Experiment and all its > followups should have detected our velocity around the sun relative > to this "absolute frame". > > > Also you seem to think that the conversion factor is > >converting clock time to absolute time. That is wrong....it is used to > >predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval > >of absolute time (such as a clock second) on the observer's clock. > > Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time > by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by > dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101. > > >> >> >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. > > >> If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the > >> conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it > >> has to be special. > >Well that's what SR says....it says that every frame is equivalent > >including the absolute rest frame > > No it doesn't. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any > absolute rest frame whatsoever. That's why they used the word > RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you're going > to have to understand SR first. > > > and that's why every SR observer > >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually > one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute > frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? > > > Also that's why every > >SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running > >slow. > > No, that's not true. SR asserts that an observer in any frame will > see the clocks in objects moving relative to that frame as running > slow. Back to my example: A sees his own clock as normal, but sees > B's clock as running slow. B sees his own clock as normal, but sees > A's clock as running slow. > > >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of > >absolute rest and that's why he says that a clock moving wrt him can > >run slow or fast compare to his clock. > > When has any such thing ever been observed? > > >> > 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. > > >> You appear to have confused the phrase "absolute rest frame" and > >> "reference frame". > >No....only the absolute rest observer can claim that all the clocks > >moving wrt him are running slow. Both SR and LET claims the properties > >of the absolute rest frame to derive the math. > > OK, C is stationary in this absolute frame. C's clock runs at the same > rate as absolute time. (correct?) A and B are moving in opposite > directions at v, according to C. C sees A's and B's clocks running slow > by gamma_ca and gamma_cb, which are equal. (Correct?) > > What velocity does A see B moving at? What rate does A see B's clock > run? What velocity does A see C moving at? What rate does A see C's > clock run? > > What velocity does B see A moving at? What rate does B see A's clock > run? What velocity does B see C moving at? What rate does B see C's > clock run? > > >>That's the only way > >> for there to be a consistent conversion from absolute time to observed > >> time in both frames. > >Sigh...you don't convert clock time to absolute time. The observer A > >clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time and this > >amount of absolute time will have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second > >on the B clock. > > Again, if I can convert from absolute time to clock time by multiplying > by 1/gamma_ab, I can find absolute time from clock time by dividing > by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra. For how long does the stations clock run slow to the passing train? If the station ages more? Mitch Raemsch
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Mar 2010 19:42 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Mar 29, 5:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> OK so you think they can be different. I don't see how that could ever >> possibly be true. If A sees B as moving at velocity V, B seeing A as >> moving at any velocity other than -V would throw all physics as we know it >> out the window. Particle accelerators, radar, all kinds of things simply >> wouldn't work. Anyway, the Michelson-Morley Experiment and all its >> followups should have detected our velocity around the sun relative >> to this "absolute frame". >No you are putting up bogus arguements. Everything will work as >before. Each observer will measure V with his clock but the V_a is not >the same as V_b because an A second is not equal to a B second. No, many things would "break". Another one is conservation of momentum. A stationary object breaks into two equal parts that fly away from each other. If each saw the other as a different velocity, then the total momentum of the system would depend on the reference frame. >> > Also you seem to think that the conversion factor is >> >converting clock time to absolute time. That is wrong....it is used to >> >predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval >> >of absolute time (such as a clock second) on the observer's clock. >> >> Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time >> by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by >> dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101. >No...you already know that the amount of absolute time involved is >represented by 1 of A's clock second. That same amount of absolute >time is represented by 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock. What if I look at my watch and see 5 seconds have gone by, and I know gamma_ab? I want to know the absolute time. I simply reverse the algebra and divide by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra. >> >> If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the >> >> conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it >> >> has to be special. >> >Well that's what SR says....it says that every frame is equivalent >> >including the absolute rest frame >> >> No it doesn't. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any >> absolute rest frame whatsoever. That's why they used the word >> RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you're going >> to have to understand SR first. >If SR does not allow for any absolute rest frame then how come the SR >observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame? Ummmm, because he doesn't? Once again, you will have to understand what SR claims before you can ever hope to modify or refute it. And again, I think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame and a reference frame. >> > and that's why every SR observer >> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. >> >> No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually >> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute >> frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? >Yes he does...he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math....it >allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are >running slow. If he gets to _select_ the frame, it isn't an absolute frame! It's just a convenient frame to use. An example of an absolute frame of sorts is cars on roads... a road speed limit law implicitly references the surface of the earth as "0" speed. The earth's surface is the "absolute" frame for speed laws. If you try to fight a speeding ticket for doing 100 in a 60 zone, you'll get laughed out of court if you claim that you weren't speeding...you were going only 45 mph relative to someone else who was going 55. Another postulated absolute frame was the frame where the theoretical (in early physics) luminiferous aether had zero velocity, which the Michelson-Morley experiment looked for. I still think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame and a reference frame. How do _you_ define the absolute frame? How do _you_ define absolute time? >> > Also that's why every >> >SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running >> >slow. >> >> No, that's not true. SR asserts that an observer in any frame will >> see the clocks in objects moving relative to that frame as running >> slow. Back to my example: A sees his own clock as normal, but sees >> B's clock as running slow. B sees his own clock as normal, but sees >> A's clock as running slow. >That's exactly what I said: Every SR observer assumes that he is in a >state of rest and the observed clock is doing the moving. Yes. no absolute frames involved. Each motion is relative to the other. >> >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of >> >absolute rest and that's why he says that a clock moving wrt him can >> >run slow or fast compare to his clock. >> >> When has any such thing ever been observed? >From the ground clock point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is >7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock >point of view: the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running >fast compared to the GPS clock. WRONG! There are two timing effects on a GPS clock as seen on earth. SR (due to orbital motion) has the GPS clock running too slow as seen on earth by 7 us/day. GR (gravity effects) has the GPS clock running too fast by 45.9 us/day as seen on earth. The GR effect is larger, so the GPS clock appears to run too fast by about 38 uS/day. So, they set the oscillator of the satellite to run at 10.22999999543 MHz before launch, so it will be received as 10.23 MHz once in orbit. What the GPS would see of a ground clock: It would see it running slow due to SR (the ground appears to be moving rapidly relative to it) by 7 us/day, but the GR would also have it running slow by 45.9 us/day (the gravitational effects are reversed). This would have the ground clock running slow by about 53 uS/day. >> OK, C is stationary in this absolute frame. C's clock runs at the same >> rate as absolute time. (correct?) >This statement has no meaning. C's clock second will contain a >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is the >least amount of absolute time compared to any clock second that is not >in a state of absolute rest. So there is not a 1:1 correspondence between absolute time and something stationary in the absolute frame? What is the relation? >> A and B are moving in opposite >> directions at v, according to C. C sees A's and B's clocks running slow >> by gamma_ca and gamma_cb, which are equal. (Correct?) >No it depends on the value of gamma_ca and gamma_cb. Which you (should) know since I said they move at v in opposite directions. >> What velocity does A see B moving at? >A will have to use his clock second to measure the velocity of B. >>What rate does A see B's clock >> run? What velocity does A see C moving at? What rate does A see C's >> clock run? >According to SR A will see B's clock running at 1/gamma_ab. >according to IRT A will see B's clock running at 1/gamma_ab or >Gamma_ab ....depending on...what? What about C's clock? What velocity does A see B moving at? >> >> What velocity does B see A moving at? What rate does B see A's clock >> run? What velocity does B see C moving at? What rate does B see C's >> clock run? >According to SR B will see A's clock running at 1/gamma_ba. >according to IRT B will see A's clock running at 1/gamma_ba or >Gamma_ba What about C's clock? What velocity does B see A moving at?
From: kenseto on 31 Mar 2010 07:12 On Mar 29, 7:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Mar 29, 5:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: > > >> OK so you think they can be different. I don't see how that could ever > >> possibly be true. If A sees B as moving at velocity V, B seeing A as > >> moving at any velocity other than -V would throw all physics as we know it > >> out the window. Particle accelerators, radar, all kinds of things simply > >> wouldn't work. Anyway, the Michelson-Morley Experiment and all its > >> followups should have detected our velocity around the sun relative > >> to this "absolute frame". > >No you are putting up bogus arguements. Everything will work as > >before. Each observer will measure V with his clock but the V_a is not > >the same as V_b because an A second is not equal to a B second. > > No, many things would "break". Another one is conservation of momentum.. > A stationary object breaks into two equal parts that fly away from > each other. If each saw the other as a different velocity, then the > total momentum of the system would depend on the reference frame. No noithing would break. Every observer would assumes that his measurements and calculations to obey the conservation of momentum. > > >> > Also you seem to think that the conversion factor is > >> >converting clock time to absolute time. That is wrong....it is used to > >> >predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval > >> >of absolute time (such as a clock second) on the observer's clock. > > >> Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time > >> by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by > >> dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101. > >No...you already know that the amount of absolute time involved is > >represented by 1 of A's clock second. That same amount of absolute > >time is represented by 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock. > > What if I look at my watch and see 5 seconds have gone by, and I know > gamma_ab? I want to know the absolute time. I simply reverse the > algebra and divide by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra. NO, NO....If you look at your watch and see 5 seconds then that 5 seconds represents a specific interval of absolute time. If you want to predict the clock reading at the B clock for this specific interval of absolute time then you multiply 5(1/gamma_ab) > > >> >> If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the > >> >> conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it > >> >> has to be special. > >> >Well that's what SR says....it says that every frame is equivalent > >> >including the absolute rest frame > > >> No it doesn't. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any > >> absolute rest frame whatsoever. That's why they used the word > >> RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you're going > >> to have to understand SR first. > >If SR does not allow for any absolute rest frame then how come the SR > >observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame? > > Ummmm, because he doesn't? Becaus ehe does....he claimed that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. This claim is based on the assumption that he is in a state of rest. > > Once again, you will have to understand what SR claims before you can > ever hope to modify or refute it. So are you saying that every SR observer didn't claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow? > > And again, I think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame > and a reference frame. When an SR observer claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow he is claiming that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > >> > and that's why every SR observer > >> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > >> No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually > >> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute > >> frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? > >Yes he does...he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math....it > >allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are > >running slow. > > If he gets to _select_ the frame, it isn't an absolute frame! It's just > a convenient frame to use. Yes he cklaimed the absolute frame because he claimed its exclusive properties. > > An example of an absolute frame of sorts is cars on roads... a road speed > limit law implicitly references the surface of the earth as "0" speed. > The earth's surface is the "absolute" frame for speed laws. > If you try to fight a speeding ticket for doing 100 in a 60 zone, you'll > get laughed out of court if you claim that you weren't speeding...you were > going only 45 mph relative to someone else who was going 55. I hav eno idea what you are talking about. A better example is: you are going at .866c wrt the ground and you said that the ground clock is running at 1/2 the rate of your clock. What this mean is that you are claiming that the ground is moving at .866 c and you are in a state of absolute rest. > > Another postulated absolute frame was the frame where the theoretical > (in early physics) luminiferous aether had zero velocity, which the > Michelson-Morley experiment looked for > > I still think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame > and a reference frame. No it is you who don't know the difference....that why you claimed that every SR observer can claim that he is in a state of absolute rest. > > How do _you_ define the absolute frame? How do _you_ define absolute > time? An observer in the absolute rest frame will see all the clocks moving wrt him are riunning slow and all the rod moving wrt him are contracted. Absolute time is present everywhere...there is no clock unit that can measure the same interval of absolute time in different frames. However every observer knows that his clock second represent a specific interval of absolute time. > > >> > Also that's why every > >> >SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running > >> >slow. > > >> No, that's not true. SR asserts that an observer in any frame will > >> see the clocks in objects moving relative to that frame as running > >> slow. Back to my example: A sees his own clock as normal, but sees > >> B's clock as running slow. B sees his own clock as normal, but sees > >> A's clock as running slow. > >That's exactly what I said: Every SR observer assumes that he is in a > >state of rest and the observed clock is doing the moving. > > Yes. no absolute frames involved. Each motion is relative to the other.. > > >> >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of > >> >absolute rest and that's why he says that a clock moving wrt him can > >> >run slow or fast compare to his clock. > > >> When has any such thing ever been observed? > >From the ground clock point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is > >7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock > >point of view: the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running > >fast compared to the GPS clock. > > WRONG! There are two timing effects on a GPS clock as seen on earth. SR > (due to orbital motion) has the GPS clock running too slow as seen on > earth by 7 us/day. GR (gravity effects) has the GPS clock running too > fast by 45.9 us/day as seen on earth. The GR effect is larger, so the GPS > clock appears to run too fast by about 38 uS/day. So, they set the > oscillator of the satellite to run at 10.22999999543 MHz before launch, so > it will be received as 10.23 MHz once in orbit. > > What the GPS would see of a ground clock: It would see it running slow due > to SR (the ground appears to be moving rapidly relative to it) by 7 > us/day, but the GR would also have it running slow by 45.9 us/day (the > gravitational effects are reversed). This would have the ground clock > running slow by about 53 uS/day. No....you are using the redefined GPS second to make this determination. If you use the regular second to do the calculation you will find that the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow. Ken Seto > > >> OK, C is stationary in this absolute frame. C's clock runs at the same > >> rate as absolute time. (correct?) > >This statement has no meaning. C's clock second will contain a > >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is the > >least amount of absolute time compared to any clock second that is not > >in a state of absolute rest. > > So there is not a 1:1 correspondence between absolute time and something > stationary in the absolute frame? What is the relation? > > >> A and B are moving in opposite > >> directions at v, according to C. C sees A's and B's clocks running slow > >> by gamma_ca and gamma_cb, which are equal. (Correct?) > >No it depends on the value of gamma_ca and gamma_cb. > > Which you (should) know since I said they move at v in opposite directions. > > >> What velocity does A see B moving at? > >A will have to use his clock second to measure the velocity of B. > >>What rate does A see B's clock > >> run? What velocity does A see C moving at? What rate does A see C's > >> clock run? > >According to SR A will see B's clock running at 1/gamma_ab. > >according to IRT A will see B's clock running at 1/gamma_ab or > >Gamma_ab > > ...depending on...what? > > What about C's clock? What velocity does A see B moving at? > > > > >> What velocity does B see A moving at? What rate does B see A's clock > >> run? What velocity does B see C moving at? What rate does B see C's > >> clock run? > >According to SR B will see A's clock running at 1/gamma_ba. > >according to IRT B will see A's clock running at 1/gamma_ba or > >Gamma_ba > > What about C's clock? What velocity does B see A moving at?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 31 Mar 2010 08:10
<kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:55c1bc6f-5072-434e-822c-146be8801161(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... [snip for brevity] > Becaus ehe does....he claimed that all the clocks moving wrt him are > running slow. This claim is based on the assumption that he is in a > state of rest. Which is correct. Every observer is in a state of rest in his own inertial frame. >> >> Once again, you will have to understand what SR claims before you can >> ever hope to modify or refute it. > > So are you saying that every SR observer didn't claim that all the > clocks moving wrt him are running slow? All moving clocks will be measured as ticking slower by observers at rest in his frame of reference. >> And again, I think you don't know the difference between an absolute >> frame >> and a reference frame. > > When an SR observer claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are > running slow he is claiming that he is in a state of absolute rest. WRONG .. he does not claim he is in a state of *absolute* rest. Just at rest in his own inertial frame of reference. That's where you are getting confused. >> >> >> > and that's why every SR observer >> >> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. >> >> >> No he doesn't. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually >> >> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute >> >> frame? Isn't it, like, ABSOLUTE? >> >Yes he does...he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math....it >> >allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are >> >running slow. >> >> If he gets to _select_ the frame, it isn't an absolute frame! It's just >> a convenient frame to use. > > Yes he cklaimed the absolute frame because he claimed its exclusive > properties. All inertial frames have the same properties, so no frame has exclusive properties. >> >> An example of an absolute frame of sorts is cars on roads... a road speed >> limit law implicitly references the surface of the earth as "0" speed. >> The earth's surface is the "absolute" frame for speed laws. >> If you try to fight a speeding ticket for doing 100 in a 60 zone, you'll >> get laughed out of court if you claim that you weren't speeding...you >> were >> going only 45 mph relative to someone else who was going 55. > > I hav eno idea what you are talking about. It was very clear > A better example is: you > are going at .866c wrt the ground and you said that the ground clock > is running at 1/2 the rate of your clock. No .. you would MEASURE it as going at half the rate of your clock. And the ground observer would MEASURE your clock as going half the rate of a ground clock. > What this mean is that you > are claiming that the ground is moving at .866 c and you are in a > state of absolute rest. Nope. There is no absolute rest in SR. You are lying again >> Another postulated absolute frame was the frame where the theoretical >> (in early physics) luminiferous aether had zero velocity, which the >> Michelson-Morley experiment looked for >> >> I still think you don't know the difference between an absolute frame >> and a reference frame. > > No it is you who don't know the difference.... Wrong > that why you claimed > that every SR observer can claim that he is in a state of absolute > rest. He didn't >> How do _you_ define the absolute frame? How do _you_ define absolute >> time? > > An observer in the absolute rest frame will see all the clocks > moving wrt him are riunning slow An observer in ANY inertial frame will claim that. So what makes the so-called absolute frame different? It must have SOME properties different to all other frames. > and all the rod moving wrt him are > contracted. An observer in ANY inertial frame will claim that. So what makes the so-called absolute frame different? It must have SOME properties different to all other frames. > Absolute time is present everywhere...there is no clock > unit that can measure the same interval of absolute time in different > frames. However every observer knows that his clock second represent a > specific interval of absolute time. How? [snip for brevity] >> What the GPS would see of a ground clock: It would see it running slow >> due >> to SR (the ground appears to be moving rapidly relative to it) by 7 >> us/day, but the GR would also have it running slow by 45.9 us/day (the >> gravitational effects are reversed). This would have the ground clock >> running slow by about 53 uS/day. > > No....you are using the redefined GPS second to make this > determination. There is no redefinition of a second .. just an adjustment of ticking rate |