SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 09:34 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. >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 -
From: kenseto on 22 Apr 2010 09:35 On Apr 19, 1:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So wormy why don't you find us an inertial frame? > > 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: Sam Wormley on 23 Apr 2010 00:57 On 4/22/10 3:44 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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. > Um... and the evidence for this is what?
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Apr 2010 01:00 On 4/22/10 3:47 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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 Um... No, Seto. A second is a second. There are not multiple definitions for a second. See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html Hey Seto, what is the value that Model Mechanics predicts for observed time dilation of a clock in a orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?
From: kenseto on 21 Apr 2010 10:01
On Apr 20, 1:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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". Hey idiot I already told you that the absolute frame have the following special properties: 1. The speed of light is isotropic c. 2. a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running clock in the universe. 3. a meter stick in the absolute frame is the longest meter stick in the universe. Einstein claimed these special p4roperties of the absolute frame for every ineertial observer and that's why the laws of physics for every inertial frame are the same. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |