SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 7 Apr 2010 00:16 kenseto 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. Really, Ken? Could you show us a resource that makes both parts of your claim? [...]
From: kenseto on 7 Apr 2010 07:02 On Apr 6, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. It is true that no object in the universe is in a state absolute rest frame. However the PoR says that all frames are equivalent including the absolute rest frame and therefore every SR obsrever uses the absolute rest frame to derive its math. LET derived its math based on the absolute rest frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math. You show me where SR says that 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. But the PoR includes the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame. The PoR does not say that the absolute rest frame doesn't exist. Ken Setp > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 7 Apr 2010 07:16 On Apr 6, 5:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. The special properties of the absolute frame are: All the cloks moving wrt the absolute rest observer are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the rod moving wrt the rest obbserver are contracted. The PoR of SR does not exclude the absolute rest frame and that's why every SR observer can claim the same exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame to derive its math. > > [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") ? What do you mean by "see each other" without using the word absolute and redefined second? The designers of the GPS knew that a ground clock second contains a higher amount of absolute time than a GPS second and therefore they redefined the GPS second to make it contain the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock second. You missed the point that you can only synch two relative clocks by having them running at the same rates in terms of absolute tme. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 7 Apr 2010 09:56 On Apr 7, 6:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > It is true that no object in the universe is in a state absolute rest > frame. The statement is stronger than that. It is not just that there are no objects at absolute rest. Relativity makes the explicit assertion -- in black and white -- that there is no absolute rest frame at all. Period. The rest of what you've said below is wrong, because it follows from this mistake. > However the PoR says that all frames are equivalent including > the absolute rest frame and therefore every SR obsrever uses the > absolute rest frame to derive its math. LET derived its math based on > the absolute rest frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math. You > show me where SR says that 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. > > But the PoR includes the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame. The > PoR does not say that the absolute rest frame doesn't exist. Special relativity says the absolute rest frame doesn't exist. I don't know why you are looking for that statement to be included in the PoR. Special relativity involves more than the one-sentence PoR. > > Ken Setp > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Sue... on 7 Apr 2010 10:25
On Apr 7, 7:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > =================== > It is true that no object in the universe is in a state absolute rest > frame. However the PoR says that all frames are equivalent including > the absolute rest frame and therefore every SR obsrever uses the > absolute rest frame to derive its math. LET derived its math based on > the absolute rest frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math. Indeed! <<...one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. 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 Sue... > You > show me where SR says that 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. > > But the PoR includes the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame. The > PoR does not say that the absolute rest frame doesn't exist. > > Ken Setp > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |