SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Apr 2010 13:55 On 4/19/10 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 18, 4:48 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I sure hope you know the difference between inertial reference >> frames and non-inertial reference frames, Seto! > > ROTFLOL...So are you saying that an absolute frame is a non-inertial > frame? > > Ken Seto I know what an inertial reference frame is and I know what a non- inertial reference frame is. Neither are absolute in any sense. Seto, you come along with your fabrication of "Absolute frames" and we all think you are bonkers. And this has been going on for more than a decade. It appears that you never learned special relativity and your posting record keeps verifying that. Furthermore you call most of us idiots and puppy chow eaters. All we are trying to do is to get you to sit down and learn special relativity. It is a beautifully fruitful theory that accurately describes many phenomena of nature. There are even Physics FAQ about special relativity. 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: Michael Moroney on 19 Apr 2010 14:08 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 18, 12:54 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> 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. Wrong. There is a GR (not SR) effect that causes the ground clock to see the satellite clock as running fast, but the SR effect (which is smaller) causes it to run a little slower. As far as the GPS satellite is concerned, both the SR and GR effects both cause the ground clock to run slower. Note that in another post, I explicitly asked to not include GR effects. : Give me an instance of inertial relative motion where one observer : observes the clock of another observer running faster. (SR, not GR : examples)
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 14:19 On Apr 19, 11:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? What the hell wormy....there is only one absolute frame.All inertial object are moving in the absolute frame. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 19 Apr 2010 14:26 kenseto <kenseto(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. 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. In contrast, Einstein states the equivalent that there are no locks on the house at all. No key is *ever* needed at any time. 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. 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.
From: kenseto on 19 Apr 2010 14:26
On Apr 19, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So what are the laws of physics of the absolute 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. So are you saying that the speed of light in the absolute frame is not isotropic? I don't think so. > > Since we have found no reference frame in which the laws of physics > are different than what they are in inertial reference frames, That's because every inertial frame adopts the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > 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. Some past experiments such as the photoelectric and the double slit experiments detected absolute motion. >In special relativity, the > absolute reference frame is explicitly said not to exist. SR gives the wrong interpretation. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |