SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 16:25 On Apr 22, 2:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > kenseto <kens...(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? > > Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. No meaning for YOU. Others are not so limited. You cling to certain concepts because they let YOU understand them. Others are not so limited. > All observed relative > motions are born from individual motions as follows: > Relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference > of their absolute motion along the line joining A and B. > > Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 16:36 On 4/22/10 2:53 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:51 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > It is more appropriate to interpreted that as a high concentration of > dark matter (S-Particles) in the center of our galaxy. > > Ken Seto > >> >> 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!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > Um... I don't thinks your "S-Particle" have any evidence of existence except, perhaps in the dark recesses of your head.
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 16:44 On Apr 22, 4:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/22/10 2:53 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 1:51 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > It is more appropriate to interpreted that as a high concentration of > > dark matter (S-Particles) in the center of our galaxy. > > > Ken Seto > > >> 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!- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > Um... I don't thinks your "S-Particle" have any evidence of existence > except, perhaps in the dark recesses of your head. Why not? Free S-Particles are the dark matter predicted by the astronomers. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 16:47 On Apr 22, 3:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/22/10 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > Hey idiot....the ground clock doesn't have to set 52 us fast. They off > > set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation before > > launch. This redefinition of the GPS second makes the GPS clock > > continuously synchronizes with the ground clock. > > Hey Ken--the received second from GPS satellite clocks have the same > duration and seconds from ground clocks. In fact GPS is an excellent > infrastructure to disseminate accurate time world-wide. Hey idiot...that's because the GPS second have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation vs the ground clock second has N periods of Cs 133 radiation. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 16:57
On Apr 22, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2:41 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > All the book written so far gave the wrong interpretation for the > > properties of an absolute frame. > > Ken, suppose I pointed to a zebra and called it a penguin. Then > suppose I said that it is a penguin because it exhibits all the > properties of a penguin: stripes, four legs, hooves, and a tail. You > would laugh at me. Suppose you then pulled out a book and showed me a > picture of what we were looking at, and right next to it is the word > "zebra", and then you did the same thing with a picture and a label of > a penguin, so that I could see the difference. Suppose I then said > that all the books written so far gave the wrong interpretation of the > properties of penguins. You would not only laugh at me, but you would > know that I had lost my mind. ROTFLOL....Failing to make a valid arguement so you trot out your ridiculus animal analogy. You can deny all you want....All the properties claimed by every inertial observer are preferred properties of an absolute frame. Ken Seto > > Ken, do you really not realize what a fool you have made of yourself? > > PD |