SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 21 Apr 2010 10:06 On Apr 21, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. That is wrong, Seto. Those are not the properties of an absolute frame. You have simply assembled a list of properties and attributed them to the string of words "absolute rest frame", but this is not what "absolute rest frame" means to physicists. You are making the same mistake as someone who looks at the properties of a cat, which is a mammal, and then concludes that the following are properties of mammals: 1. Mammals have fur. 2. Mammals have four legs. 3. Mammals give live birth to their young. When in fact, NONE of those properties are properties of mammals, though they are properties of a cat. You cannot *deduce* properties of an absolute reference frame. You have to simply ask physicists what the properties of an absolute reference frame are, as that term is used in science. That is, you have to ASK what the definition of the term is, and accept that definition as it is given to you. It does absolutely no good to reject a definition of a term as used in physics and substitute your own. It just makes you a crank when you do that. > 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 - > >
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Apr 2010 10:50 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? Seems that is a contradiction to your "clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running clock in the universe". Don't you agree?
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Apr 2010 10:53 On 4/21/10 9:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot....if they set the GPS clock to run 52 us/day running fast > then they would have to redefine the GPS second to have more than (N > +4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation. > > Ken Seto Actually the second needs no redefinition at all. Time dilation slows time itself... not units of measure. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Apr 2010 12:39 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 20, 1:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> 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. Hey, fool, I didn't ask what your absolute frame has in common with every inertial frame, I asked what's _different_ about it. In other words, what special laws of physics apply to it, that makes it special, and thus absolute.
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Apr 2010 14:44
Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> writes: >On 4/20/10 12:28 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On the other hand, the satellite will see the ground clock as running >> slow, by 45 us (GR) + 7uS (SR) = ~52uS. However, the only ground clocks >> the satellite cares about are programming signals from the agency that >> maintains them. I'm sure they're set 52uS fast to correct for those >> effects. > GR is sufficient: See Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks >http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html Are you saying SR effects can be ignored when the observer on a GPS satellite measures a signal frequency of an Earthbound source? |