SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 6 Apr 2010 17:02 On Apr 6, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes. > 3. Relativity says there is no such thing as the absolute rest frame. No....relaticty name the absolute frame as an inertial frame. SR does not say that there is no absolute rest frame. SR says that all frames are equivalent, including 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. No relativity (SR) is incomplete. In order for SR to be complete it must include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster than the observer's clock. IRT is such a theory: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto Ken Seto > > 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: BURT on 6 Apr 2010 17:28 On Apr 6, 1:52 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Frames are flowing through space. If they have a fastest clock then they are in a slowest motion through space. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sue... on 6 Apr 2010 17:30 On Apr 6, 5:02 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > 3. Relativity says there is no such thing as the absolute rest frame. > > No....relaticty name the absolute frame as an inertial frame. SR does > not say that there is no absolute rest frame. SR says that all frames > are equivalent, including 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. > > No relativity (SR) is incomplete. In order for SR to be complete it > must include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster > than the observer's clock. I think H.Minkwoski may have provided for that: << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html IRT is such a theory: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf "There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded." --Mark Twain > > Ken Seto > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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: Michael Moroney on 6 Apr 2010 17:37 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. >Physicists use the word inertial frame to mean the absolute frame and >assumes the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to derive the >math. No they do not. They use "absolute frame" to refer to a frame which has some special properties that is different from all other frames in older theories. Einstein specifically stated there was no absolute reference frame. [snip rest] I see you still can't do this: : 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") ?
From: PD on 6 Apr 2010 18:07
On Apr 6, 4:02 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > 3. Relativity says there is no such thing as the absolute rest frame. > > No....relaticty name the absolute frame as an inertial frame. SR does > not say that there is no absolute rest frame. Yes, it does. It explicitly says there is no such thing as an absolute rest frame. I don't know what you're reading about what SR says, but if your reading material doesn't explain this, then you've got crappy reading material. > SR says that all frames > are equivalent, including the absolute rest frame. SR says all inertial reference frames have the same laws of physics. It isn't about to make the same claim about a frame it explicitly says does not exist. > > > 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. > > No relativity (SR) is incomplete. In order for SR to be complete it > must include the possibility that an observed clock can run faster > than the observer's clock. IRT is such a theory:http://www.modelmechanics..org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |