SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 5 Apr 2010 18:06 On Apr 5, 1:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 2, 12:27 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own > >> frame. > >Yes there is absolute frame in SR. The SR observer assumes that he is > >in an absolute frame and that's why he predicts all the clocks moving > >wrt him are running slow. > > As i thought. You seem to be using the word "absolute" to mean what the > word "reference" or "relative" means to physicists (when discussing > relativity). To a physicist, "absolute" frames mean something completely > different. > > Kind of like teaching a new driver to stop for "green" lights and "red" > means go, but the teacher simply uses the word "green" to mean the color > of ripe tomatoes and "red" means the color of grass... > > If you *ever* intend on having a reasoned discussion on such physics, > you're going to have to learn to speak the same language as the rest of > us. Trying to translate from Seto-ese into English gets too confusing. > > Also I notice you ignored this challenge: > > > > >> Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on > >> the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and > >> without using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space is the absolute frame for motion. Motion is unified with it. Space does not contract but time slows. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2010 11:32 On Apr 5, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 2, 12:27 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> No "absolute rest frame" - each observation is _relative_ to their own > >> frame. > >Yes there is absolute frame in SR. The SR observer assumes that he is > >in an absolute frame and that's why he predicts all the clocks moving > >wrt him are running slow. > > As i thought. You seem to be using the word "absolute" to mean what the > word "reference" or "relative" means to physicists (when discussing > relativity). To a physicist, "absolute" frames mean something completely > different. No I didn't use the word absolute to mean what the word relative mean. Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame and assumes the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the math. Similarly a LET observer assumed the existence of the absolute frame and assume the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the math. That's why SR and LET have the same math. Ken Seto > > Kind of like teaching a new driver to stop for "green" lights and "red" > means go, but the teacher simply uses the word "green" to mean the color > of ripe tomatoes and "red" means the color of grass... > > If you *ever* intend on having a reasoned discussion on such physics, > you're going to have to learn to speak the same language as the rest of > us. Trying to translate from Seto-ese into English gets too confusing. > > Also I notice you ignored this challenge: > > > > >> Now, can you tell us how you think the clocks on a GPS satellite and on > >> the ground see each other without using the word "absolute"? (and > >> without using the nonsense phrase "redefined second") ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Apr 2010 12:50 kenseto wrote: > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a physicist". Tom Roberts
From: PD on 6 Apr 2010 12:58 On Apr 6, 11:50 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame > > No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a > physicist". > > Tom Roberts Seto's argument: 1. The properties physicists ascribe to inertial frames in fact are properties unique to the absolute rest frame, by Seto's dictum. 2. Therefore physicists are equating inertial reference frames and the absolute rest frame. 3. Relativity says there is no such thing as the absolute rest frame. 4. Therefore relativity is self-contradictory, and must be replaced by a better theory with no contradictions. 5. Seto's theory is such a theory. Now, if you point out this is like asserting that mammalian property of having mammary glands is the unique property of reptiles, and that therefore mammals are reptiles, and therefore biological taxonomy is self-contradictory and needs to be replaced with a better taxonomy that classifies cats as reptiles, Seto will then ask you whether you are now claiming that inertial reference frames are reptiles. Seto's mind is like a fire that has gone out overnight. PD
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2010 16:52
On Apr 6, 12:50 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame > > No, we don't. That would be preposterous. Do not confuse yourself with "a > physicist". ROTFLOL....You are denying the obvious.....the PoR asserts that all frames are equaivalent, including the absolute frame. That's why an SR observer can claim the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the math. That's why SR and LET have the same math. I do not confuse muyelf with the runts of physicists such as yourself. Ken Seto > > Tom Roberts |