SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: whoever on 18 Apr 2010 10:14 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:770a8c0f-8324-4f4d-a2de-8ca9987e2a5c(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/16/10 10:03 AM, kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: >> >> > The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every >> > inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and >> > that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs. >> >> > Ken seto >> >> You are correct when you write "no inertial frame is the absolute >> frame" as there are no absolute reference frame of any kind. A >> postulate of special relativity is: >> >> "...same laws of >> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames >> of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold >> good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which >> will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') >> to the status of a postulate, ..." > > Wormy....the PoR says that all frames are equvalent, including the > absolute frame. There is no absolute frame > Every inertial observer adopted the laws f physics of > the absolute frame No .. you have it backwards .. there is no absolute frame to refer to the laws of .. whatever frame you may think is absolute has the same physics as any other frame, so it isn't in any way special. > to do physics and that's why all inertial frames > (including the absolute frame) have the same laws of physics. There is no 'absolute frame' .. but yes .. whatever frame you may think is 'absolute' has the same physics as any other frame. There is nothing special about any so-called absolute frame .. hence no reason to call it 'absolute' --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 10:28 On Apr 16, 5:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 15, 12:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >> It's "special" because it has its own special laws of physics. > >> >So why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics > >> >between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? > > >> That's kind of like describing the difference between a rabbit and the > >> Easter Bunny. While the properties of a rabbit are well known, what is > >> the Easter Bunny like? Well, every little kid has their own vision of it, > >> with many ideas similar to other kids' ideas. It could be anything, > >> because it doesn't exist, although rabbits do. > >LET describes the absolute frame perfectly....so why can't you? > > No it doesn't. Where did you come up with that? Yes it does. LET accepts the existence of the aBSOLUTE FRAME AND USE IT to drive the LET math. SR asserts: every inertial observer adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and use the absolute frame to derive the SR math. Thatt's why LET and SR hav ethe same math. > > >There is only one absolute frame. > > No, there aren't any, according to SR. Wrong in SR an inertial frame is considered to be an absolute frame. > > >An observer at rest in this absolute > >frame will see (predict) all the clocks moving wrt him are running > >slow and all the rulers moving wrt him are contracted. Also the speed > >of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. > > That applies to _all_ inertial reference frame, not just one "absolute" > frame. That's because every inertial observer adopt the laws of physics of the absolute frame. BTW in order to make every inertial frame obey the laws of phyiscs of the absolute frame you SRians had to redefine a meter length in terms of light-second....1 meter= 1/299,792,458 light- second. > > > A LET observer assumes > >these properties of the absolute frame and that's why SR and LET have > >identical math. > > False. Why is that false???? > > >LET says that the speed of light is isotropic only in the absolute > >frame and he use the exclusive properties of the absolute frame to > >derive its math. > > No, it doesn't. Assertion is not a valid ARGUEMENT. > > > SR says that says that the speed of light is > >isotropic in every inertial frame including the absolute frame. > > No, SR states there is no absolute frame. Period. > > >> No, you are using whatever you defined "absolute frame" to be, not how > >> theoretical physics defines it. What is the frame you call the Absolute > >> Frame? Perhaps it's the frame where a cosmic ray proton, moving at 0.9 c > >> parallel to the north-south axis of Pluto, is stationary. Since that > >> frame is an inertial frame, it can be used as a reference for physics. But > >> to avoid confusion, how about if we call that frame (or whichever frame > >> you call the "absolute frame") Seto's Frame or something, so people don't > >> think we're discussing the absolute frame of aether theory or some other > >> old theory. > >No the absolute frame has the following exclusive properties: > >1. The speed of light in the absolute frame is isotropic. > > All inertial frames have that property. That's because every inertal frame adopts the laws of phyiscs of the absolute frame. > > >2. All the clocks moving wrt the absolute frame are running slower. > > All inertial frames have that property. That's becasue every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > >3. All the rulers moving wrt the absolute frame are contracted. > > All inertial frames have that property. That's becasue every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 10:30 On Apr 16, 5:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? > > You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no > absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to > have to rebut SR. Hey idiot SR does not say that there is no absolute frame. SR says that all frames are equivalent, including the absolute frame. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 10:34 On Apr 16, 9:43 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:96088237-0520-4342-a0e3-a6ebae78cb60(a)d34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 16, 11:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute > > > frame and that's why every inertial frame has the same laws of > > > physics. > > > > _________________________________ > > > > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what makes > > > one > > > of them the absolute frame? > > > The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every > > inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and > > that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs. > > > Ken seto > > > ________________________________ > > OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is > > not > > an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it? > > No...no inertial frame is in a sate of absolute rest. However, every > inertial frame adopt the laws of physcs of the absolute frame. > > ______________________________ > But you said above (and I quote) that "no inertial frame is the absolute > frame". Therefore the absolute frame is *not* an inertial frame. If the > absolute frame isn't an inertial frame, then what is it, according to you? Sigh....even though an inertial frame is not an absolute frame but every inertial observer adopts the laws of phyiscs of the absolute frame to do phyiscs. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 18 Apr 2010 10:59
On Apr 17, 10:26 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:ccd063ff-138e-49a7-8251-6137445c5e99(a)k11g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 16, 9:43 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >news:96088237-0520-4342-a0e3-a6ebae78cb60(a)d34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 16, 11:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > >news:93290e3f-991e-487e-8334-64a2bde49f23(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Apr 15, 11:02 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > Every inertial observer adopted the laws of physics of the absolute > > > > frame and that's why every inertial frame has the same laws of > > > > physics. > > > > > _________________________________ > > > > > If the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame, what > > > > makes > > > > one > > > > of them the absolute frame? > > > > The point is: no inertial frame is the absolute frame....but every > > > inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame and > > > that's why every inertial frames has the same laws of phyiscs. > > > > Ken seto > > > > ________________________________ > > > OK, "no inertial frame is the absolute frame". So the absolute frame is > > > not > > > an inertial frame. If its not an inertial frame, what is it? > > > No...no inertial frame is in a sate of absolute rest. However, every > > inertial frame adopt the laws of physcs of the absolute frame. > > > ______________________________ > > But you said above (and I quote) that "no inertial frame is the absolute > > frame". Therefore the absolute frame is *not* an inertial frame. If the > > absolute frame isn't an inertial frame, then what is it, according to you? > > Even though no inertial observer is in a state of absolute rest but > every inertial frame observer adopts the laws of physics of the > absolute frame anyway. > > ____________________________ > What is the absolute frame to which you refer? What is its speed relative to > the Sun? How is it different an inertial frame that is *not* an absolute > frame? An absolute frame is not doing the moving.....the sun is doing the moving in the absolute frame and that's call the absolute motion of the sun. The differences between an inertial observer and an absolute frame observer are as follows: 1. An absolute observer will say that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rulers moving wrt him are contracted. He will measure the one-way speed of light uisng a physical ruler to be isotropic. 2. An inertial observer will say that some clocks moving wrt him are running slower than his clock and some are running faster than his clock. He will also say that the light path length of some rulers moving wrt him are contracted and the light path length of some rulers moving wrt him are lengthened compared to the light path length of his ruler. Also an inertial observer will say that the one-way speed of light using the redefined meter length of 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second to measure one-way speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. http://www.modelmechanicas.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto 1. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |