SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Apr 2010 11:31 On 4/19/10 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 18, 5:00 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/18/10 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> 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. > >> >> Inertial frame of reference >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference > But inertial reference frames are defined in physics... and you are making up "absolute" frames. What the hell?
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 12:24 On Apr 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Then why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics > between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? I have already, Ken, in this thread. I characterized how, in inertial reference frames, the Newtonian laws of mechanics and the laws of electrodynamics hold. I also described how the laws of physics would be different in an absolute reference frame. The properties that YOU think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. Since we have found no reference frame in which the laws of physics are different than what they are in inertial reference frames, in a manner that singles out a velocity with respect to an absolute reference, we have no evidence for an absolute reference frame at all, despite searching for one experimentally. In special relativity, the absolute reference frame is explicitly said not to exist. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 12:25 On Apr 19, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 4:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > NO....there is an absolute frame. The laws of physics of the absolute > frame is adopted by every inertial observer an dthat's why all > inertial frame have the same laws of physics. No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. You are simply mistaken about that. "Absolute reference frame" has a very specific meaning in physics, and it is not the meaning you attribute to the term. > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Michael Moroney on 20 Apr 2010 13:09 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 19, 2:26 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> >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 No, it doesn't. It's what you claim SR claims. SR makes no such claim. That's why I called your claim stupid. >>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. No, it doesn't. It's what you claim SR claims. SR makes no such claim. >>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. No, he doesn't. Give me a reference where he states that you need an absolute frame adopt its properties and then no longer need it. You can't. >> >> 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. How can I describe the difference between something and something that does not exist? What's the difference between a rabbit and the Easter Bunny? OK, here it goes. An inertial frame is a frame that describes motion and interactions without any fictitious forces. All inertial frames are in constant motion (no acceleration) with respect to each other. An absolute frame is pink with purple polkadots and is invisible. It is soft and fluffy with razor-sharp teeth. It has magical powers on the third Tuesday of every month, except during a full moon. >> 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. Just as I thought. You can't give any reference where Einstein claims any absolute frame exists. That's because it is you who created the idea that an absolute frame exists in SR, not Einstein.
From: Michael Moroney on 20 Apr 2010 13:18
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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? I don't know, as that's a general definition. An absolute or preferred frame has *some property* (some law of physics) that's identifiably different from other frames. Something that makes it special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame An example is the once-theorized frame where the aether wind was stationary. > Is the speed of light in the absolute frame not >isotropic c? Which absolute frame of which theory? Maybe you can tell us what it is about this absolute frame you keep talking about that makes it special, and thus "absolute". |