SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 22 Apr 2010 13:20 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >> No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference >> frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. >assertion is not a valid arguement. So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows?
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 13:30 On 4/19/10 1:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > I didn't say that an inertial frame or a non-inertial frame is an > absolute frame. I said that every inertial frame claims that laws of > phyiscs of the absolute frame. > > Ken Seto > No--In inertial reference frames--as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frame of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. Nothing in this definition requires absolute anything. Seto--You have one big misconception and you brain is not capable of understanding your error.
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 13:51 On 4/22/10 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 21, 10:50 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/21/10 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> 2. a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running clock in the >>> universe. >> >> So... how come a guy falling into a black hole (and using a really >> good telescope) sees most of the clock in the rest of the universe >> speeding up faster and faster and faster? > > There is no such thing as a black hole. Even if there is the guy > falling into the black hole is not in a state of absolute rest and > thus he is not in the absolute frame. > >> >> Seems that is a contradiction to your "clock in the absolute frame >> is the fastest running clock in the universe". Don't you agree? > There is a massive black hole in the center of our galaxy, Ken. Measurements of the gas and the orbital velocities of the nearby stars peg its mass at at least three million solar masses and it boundary is very much smaller than the orbit of Mercury, meaning that all that mass is within its Schwarzschild radius. Sag A* is a black hole alright, and a big one. If you were falling in, you would measure the rest of the universe speeding up and all those clocks would be going faster and faster and faster!
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 15:41 On Apr 22, 10:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 12:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > assertion is not a valid arguement. > > That's correct, Ken, and what you assert are the properties of an > absolute frame is not a valid argument... Wrong.....what I wrote are the exclusive properties of an absolute frame. The fact that every inertial observer adopts them as the properties of his frame does not invalidate them to be the properties of an absolute frame. > > What an absolute frame in physics is, is documented in black and white > in several books I can recommend to you. All the book written so far gave the wrong interpretation for the properties of an absolute frame. Ken Seto > This removes the matter > completely from argument. If you disbelieve what I tell you, then look > it up. If you don't want to look it up, and would rather believe what > you want to believe, and you expect people to convince you by > argument, then you will always remain ignorant of what physics says. > Some things are just documented fact, and the way to be convinced is > to look up the documentation of those facts. Period. End of story. > > It's your choice, Ken. You can live in your fantasy world, or you can > reconnect with the real world. Your choice. > > > > > > > >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 -- 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: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 15:46
On Apr 22, 10:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. The properties that YOU > > > think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those > > > are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. > > > No....every inertial frame adopts the special properties of the > > absolute frame > > No, Ken, what you say are the properties of the absolute frame are NOT > the properties of the absolute frame, as that word is used in physics. > Sorry, you're just mistaken. No it is you who is mistaken. In the absolute frame the speed of light is isotropicc; a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running clock in the universe and a meter stick in the absolute frame is the longest meter stick in th euniverse. Thes exclusive preferred properties are what make the absolute frame unique. Ken Seto > > > then you SRians turn around and claim that these > > special properties of the absolute frame are the exclusive properties > > of every inertial frame. > > > Now you are asking what are the special properties of the absolute > > frame. > > I'm not asking for what the special properties are. I've told you what > the special properties are already. > > > > > This is much like after your mother gave birth to you and you > > grow up and claim that your mathe ris not your mother. > > > > Since we have found no reference frame in which the laws of physics > > > are different than what they are in inertial reference frames, > > > Of course...that's because the laws of physics of every inertial frame > > are adopted from the special 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. 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |