SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 09:45 On Apr 18, 12:47 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 16, 5:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > > For the third time, where did you come up with that? Give us a reference > from any of Einstein's writings on SR that accepts the existence of any > sort of absolute frame. You can't, because in contrast he states that > all inertial frames are equivalent, and there's simply no need for an > inertial frame. ROTFLOL....so there is no need for an inertial frame...eh? In case it's a typo....of there is no longer a need for an absolute frame after every inertial observer claims the exclusive properties of an absolute frame. Ken Seto > > >> >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. > > Wrong. Or once again, give a reference that that was created by anyone > other than yourself. > > >> >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. > > Wrong. That was done because the speed of light could be measured more > accurately than the length of a platinum bar in Paris. > > >> > 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???? > > Because there is no absolute frames, for starters. > > >> >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. > > It's all over the place in Einstein's writings on SR. The speed of light > in a vacuum is a constant in all inertial reference frames. > > >> >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. > > Wrong. It's simply a property of all inertial reference frames, according > to SR. > > >> >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. > > Wrong. It's simply a property of all inertial reference frames, according > to SR. > > >> >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. > > Wrong. It's simply a property of all inertial reference frames, according > to SR.
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 09:49 On Apr 18, 12:50 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >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. > > You are the idiot, redefining SR to include some sort of absolute frame. > I already gave you a reference to Einstein's SR paper (which I notice > you didn't respond to) where the *only* references to an absolute frame > was stating it was not necessary and would not be used. Right....the absolute frame is no longer needed after every inertial observer adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame. Notice that Einstein did not deny the existence of the absolute frame.
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 09:52 On Apr 18, 12:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >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. > > Describe for us *any* two inertial frames where either a clock in one > ticks faster or a ruler is lengthened as seen from the other. From the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is approximately 7 us/day running fast.
From: kenseto on 20 Apr 2010 09:28 On Apr 19, 2:26 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 18, 12:47 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> For the third time, where did you come up with that? Give us a reference > >> from any of Einstein's writings on SR that accepts the existence of any > >> sort of absolute frame. You can't, because in contrast he states that > >> all inertial frames are equivalent, and there's simply no need for an > >> inertial frame. > >ROTFLOL....so there is no need for an inertial frame...eh? > > Typo. That last "inertial" is supposed to be "absolute", of course. > > >In case it's a typo....of there is no longer a need for an absolute > >frame after every inertial observer claims the exclusive properties of > >an absolute frame. > > That's pretty stupid. I agree but that's what SR claims >It's like saying that I have no need for any house > key to get into my house after I use my house key to unlock the door. The > fact remains, if the door was locked, you do need the key. I agree but that's what SR claims. >In contrast, > Einstein states the equivalent that there are no locks on the house at > all. No key is *ever* needed at any time. No Einstein said that after you open the door with the key there is no longer a need for the key. > > Anyway, Einstein simply said there was no need for any sort of absolute > frame. Not "no need for an absolute frame after using the properties of an > absolute frame", he said No need for the absolute frame. Period. No need > at all. Wrong....the laws of physics of every inertial frame are the laws of physics of the absolute frame. If you disagree with this statement you need to provide us with the differences in the laws of physics between an inertial frame and an absolute frame. > > I'll give you a fourth chance to prove me wrong. Give us a reference from > any of Einstein's writings on SR that accepts the existence of any sort of > absolute frame. You can't. You can't give me a reference where Einstein said that the absolute frame doesn't exist. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 20 Apr 2010 09:31
On Apr 19, 2:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 18, 5:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> SR needs no "absolute" reference frames. Seto, do you know the > >> difference between inertial reference frames and non-inertial > >> reference frames? > >Hey idiot we are talking about the differences between an inertial > >frame and an absolute frame. > > Well, consider this: SR states that all inertial frames have the same > physics. An absolute frame, by definition, has some law of physics that > is identifiably different in it. So what are those laaws of the absolute frame that are different than the inertial frame? Is the speed of light in the absolute frame not isotropic c? Ken Seto > Therefore, it cannot be the same as > other inertial frames. Therefore the absolute frame, if it exists, > must be non-inertial. |