SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 8 Apr 2010 13:15 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 7, 1:44=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. >> >> Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. >What I said is what SR says....so you agree that SR is self >contradictory :-) No. Only the first sentence is what SR states. The second sentence is what SR states only up to (but not including) the word "including". The rest of that sentence is your own creation, not Einstein's, and is what introduces the contradiction (discussing an absolute rest frame which the first sentence says doesn't exist). PD was correct, you blame SR for your own contradictions. Blame yourself for your own mistakes, not SR.
From: kenseto on 9 Apr 2010 11:44 On Apr 8, 10:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. > > That's your problem -- the PoR makes no mention of "absolute frame" at all, yet > you persist in reading something that isn't there [#]. The PoR says that all inertial frames are equivalent.If that doesn't include the absolute rest frame then you need to define the differences between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame. > As I keep saying and you > keep ignoring: YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ. Your bullying tactic is not working. Ken Seto > > [#] Try searching Einstein's translated paper for "absolute frame": > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > Tom Roberts
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 12:03 On Apr 8, 10:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. > > That's your problem -- the PoR makes no mention of "absolute frame" at all, yet > you persist in reading something that isn't there [#]. As I keep saying and you > keep ignoring: YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ. ===================== > > [#] Try searching Einstein's translated paper for "absolute frame": > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Better still, search the later paper that is nearly worthless for parlour-tricks. http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Sue... > > Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 9 Apr 2010 15:25 kenseto wrote: > On Apr 8, 10:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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. >> >> That's your problem -- the PoR makes no mention of "absolute frame" at >> all, yet you persist in reading something that isn't there [#]. > > The PoR says that all inertial frames are equivalent.If that doesn't > include the absolute rest frame then you need to define the > differences between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame. Yes Ken, what ARE the differences between an inertial frame and an absolute rest frame? I think you don't know, even after 15 years. > > >> As I keep saying and you >> keep ignoring: YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ. > > Your bullying tactic is not working. > > Ken Seto > >> >> [#] Try searching Einstein's translated paper for "absolute frame": >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> >> Tom Roberts
From: kenseto on 11 Apr 2010 10:17
On Apr 8, 1:15 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 7, 1:44=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > > >> Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. > >What I said is what SR says....so you agree that SR is self > >contradictory :-) > > No. Only the first sentence is what SR states. The second sentence > is what SR states only up to (but not including) the word "including". If the PoR does not include the absolute rest frame then you need to define the differences between an inertial frame and the absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > The rest of that sentence is your own creation, not Einstein's, and is > what introduces the contradiction (discussing an absolute rest frame > which the first sentence says doesn't exist). What I said there is based on the fact that every SR observer uses the exclusive prerties of the absolute rest frame to derive its math....so every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in the absolute rest frame. > > PD was correct, you blame SR for your own contradictions. Blame > yourself for your own mistakes, not SR. |