SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Apr 2010 13:01 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 17, 3:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute >> >frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. >> >> No it doesn't. SR says that it doen't need the absolute frame. Period. >> The rest of that sentence is your own creation, nothing to do with SR. >Yes it does....no where in SR says that it doesn't need the laws of >physics of the absolute frame. Absolute space is unnecessary. From http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." Follow Wormley's advice. Learn what SR actually states. It seems that you've been wrong here for some 15 years.
From: PD on 18 Apr 2010 14:18 On Apr 18, 11:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute > > > frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > > Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same > as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? Yes, I deny that. The laws of physics in the absolute frame are DIFFERENT than they are in inertial reference frames. That's what distinguishes the absolute rest frame. That's what it means. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Apr 2010 16:48 On 4/18/10 9:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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, I sure hope you know the difference between inertial reference frames and non-inertial reference frames, Seto! Inertial frame of reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference "In physics, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference frame or inertial frame ) is a frame of reference which describes time homogeneously and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time independent manner. This allows motion and interactions to be described without the presence of fictitious forces. Special relativity states that there are actually infinitely many such frames, and the physical laws takes the same form as they do in any other inertial frame of the same handedness. In flat spacetimes, all inertial frames are in a state of constant, uniform motion with respect to one another". "By contrast, in non-inertial reference frames, the laws of physics are dependent upon the particular frame of reference, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by what are called fictitious forces. All non-inertial frames are accelerating with respect to all inertial frames". Do read the reference, Ken. including the > absolute frame. Every inertial observer adopted the laws f physics of > the absolute frame to do physics and that's why all inertial frames > (including the absolute frame) have the same laws of physics. > > Ken Seto >
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Apr 2010 16:51 On 4/18/10 9:10 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 17, 10:15 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/10 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>> Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute >>> frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. >> >>> Ken Seto >> >> SR doesn't say anything about or have any need for your "absolute" >> reference frames, Ken. All inertial reference frame are relative! > > Hey wormy then why does SR adopt the laws of phyiscs of the absolute > frame? > > Ken Seto SR doesn't adopt anything related to your "absolute" frame that doesn't even exist. Seto--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and you should take the time to learn it, Seto. What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html How do you add velocities in special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html Can special relativity handle acceleration? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Apr 2010 16:57
On 4/18/10 10:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>> Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute >>> frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. >> >> Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > > Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same > as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? Since there is no "absolute" reference frame, we have no idea (and neither do you) of what you are obsessed with. Whether a body is in motion or at rest depends strictly on the point of view of the observer. |