SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 10:01 On Apr 24, 8:55 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 9:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:59 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 10:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 7:53 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > I agree the animal analogy would make it clear how ridiculous you've > > > > > > been. > > > > > > Anybody who would do that would be out of their mind. > > > > > > Anybody who would do what you've done with physics terms would be out > > > > > > of their mind, too. > > > > > > That much is obvious. > > > > > > > > You can deny all you want....All the properties claimed by every > > > > > > > inertial observer are preferred properties of an absolute frame. > > > > > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. Your own words. > > > > > > > What I've said is reality, documented. > > > > > > There is no reality in what you claimed. > > > > > It's in black and white, Ken. It's obvious you don't understand it. > > > > But that doesn't make it not real. > > > > Sure it is in black and white alright....A sees B's clock > > > is running slower by a factor of 1/gamma and B sees A's clock is > > > running slower by a factor of 1/gamma. Is that your version of > > > reality? > > > If it's measured, Ken, it's real. It doesn't matter whether it > > conflicts with your common sense. If your common sense conflicts with > > measurement, then it's your common sense that needs fixing, not the > > measurement. > > Hey idiot there is no such measurement ever been made. Oh, yes it has! And I'm NOT thinking of GPS, because GPS is not an example of this. This measurement HAS been made with decaying subatomic particles. If you think that this is all just hypothetical stuff and hasn't been seen in real life, and so that is your avenue for denying it, that's wrong. You just need to become more familiar with the VAST wealth of experimental information that has been gathered. > Prediction is > not a measurement....every SR observer predicts that every observed > clock is running slow. No, every inertial observer MEASURES that a clock moving inertially relative to it is running slow. This is documented. It is more than just a prediction. It is an established, measured fact. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > For example: A sees B's clock > > > > > is running slower by a factor of 1/gamma and B sees A's clock is > > > > > running slower by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > > > > You claim that reality is wrong, and the documentation is all wrong. > > > > > > No I claimed that what SR said is wrong. > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but the meaning of "preferred frame", "absolute rest > > > > frame", and "inertial frame" preceded SR by a long, long time. You are > > > > debating the meaning of terms in Newtonian physics now. That's been > > > > around since the 1600's. > > > > > > > People who claim that reality is wrong, and that all the documentation > > > > > > is wrong, are generally psychotic, Ken, and suffer from a break with > > > > > > reality. > > > > > > SR is wrong because it adopts the properties of an absolute frame and > > > > > then turns around and claim that the absolute frame doesn't exist.. > > > > > Your first use of "absolute frame" in the sentence above is the term > > > > as YOU'VE defined it. The second use of "absolute frame" is the term > > > > as PHYSICS has defined it. If you want to know why the claim is made > > > > that the absolute frame doesn't exist, you have to know and accept the > > > > meaning of "absolute frame" as PHYSICS uses it. Otherwise, you won't > > > > know what they're talking about when the claim is made that the > > > > absolute frame doesn't exist. Don't you see that? > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > You may want to stick to your guns, Ken, and remain unconvinced.. > > > > > > That's what happens with the delusional. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > Ken, do you really not realize what a fool you have made of yourself? > > > > > > > > > PD- 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 - > >
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 11:08 On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in > > > > > > > > > physics, and it means something completely different than what you > > > > > > > > > have made up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > > > > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > > > > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is. It is not the > > > > > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > > > > > word that you just made up the meaning of. > > > > > ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word > > > > "preferred". > > > > It doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > PHYSICS. > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. No idiot....it is not true for every clock. If A is predicted to run faster than B then B must predict that A is running slower than A. These conclusions are based on the GPS clock compared to the ground clock. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is running fast by a factor of 38 us/day. From the GPS point of view the ground clock is approx. 38us/day running slow. Ken Seto >Anything that is true > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > relative to each other. > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > But it IS true for B and C. > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C. > In the frame where C is at rest, C is running faster than A and B. > Since this property is also true for B and C, then it can't be that A > is preferred in any way. But neither is B, and neither is C. > > > I don't think so. > > Then you are wrong, because it IS so. Measured. Whether it jives with > your common sense or not. > > Here's the lesson for you, Ken. If a measurement conflicts with your > common sense, then it is time to DROP your common sense, because your > common sense must obviously be telling you a lie. > > > > > It is more likely > > that you have a naive understanding of current physics.:-) > > > Ken Seto > > > > It doesn't do any good to splutter, "But my definitions are just as > > > valid for all those terms as the ones physicists use. I just reject > > > the physics definitions, and use mine instead because they are valid > > > definitions to me." If you do this, you might as well be speaking > > > Japanese. No one will understand what you're talking about. > > > > > It there no limit to your stupidity? OTOH, that is > > > > expected from an indoctrinated runt of the SRians like you. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > The meaning given to "absolute reference frame" was established long > > > > > > > before you came along and started making stuff up, Ken. > > > > > > > Then you better discard those meaning. Why? Because it is wrong.. > > > > > > No, Ken. The meaning is set up when the term is used first in physics. > > > > > You do not have the right to come in and say, "All the meanings of the > > > > > words you use in physics are wrong. Everybody should use my meanings > > > > > instead, because I like them better." You have the right to invent NEW > > > > > words, and give them your own definitions. But you cannot expect to > > > > > use terms that ALREADY are in use in physics, and ALREADY have a > > > > > specific meaning in physics, and to use them differently with > > > > > different meanings -- people will have no idea what you're talking > > > > > about, and you will fail to communicate your ideas at all. > > > > > > > > Your assertions are yours alone. You have no backup. Assertion is not > > > > > > > an argument, Ken. Your own words. You are guilty of asserting what is > > > > > > > contrary to what is known and documented, and assertion is not an > > > > > > > argument. > > > > > > > I made no assertion....the fastest running clock in the universe is a > > > > > > preferred clock and only a clock in a state of absolute rest can claim > > > > > > that. > > > > > > That is an assertion on your part. It is NOT CORRECT. > > > > > > > SR claims thaT FOR EVERY inertial observer. Such claim is valid > > > > > > only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion > > > > > > than the observer's clock. BTW that's the reason why SR is > > > > > > incomplete.....it failed to include the possibility that an observed > > > > > > clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > > > > > > 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 -
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 11:20 On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in > > > > > > > > > physics, and it means something completely different than what you > > > > > > > > > have made up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > > > > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > > > > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is. It is not the > > > > > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > > > > > word that you just made up the meaning of. > > > > > ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word > > > > "preferred". > > > > It doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > PHYSICS. > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. Anything that is true > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > relative to each other. > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame...in case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > But it IS true for B and C. No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a factor of gamma. > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C. No....B is never run faster than A. This assertion is based on the bogus SR assertion that B is adopting the laws of physics of the absolute frame. Ken Seto > In the frame where C is at rest, C is running faster than A and B. > Since this property is also true for B and C, then it can't be that A > is preferred in any way. But neither is B, and neither is C. > > > I don't think so. > > Then you are wrong, because it IS so. Measured. Whether it jives with > your common sense or not. > > Here's the lesson for you, Ken. If a measurement conflicts with your > common sense, then it is time to DROP your common sense, because your > common sense must obviously be telling you a lie. > > > > > It is more likely > > that you have a naive understanding of current physics.:-) > > > Ken Seto > > > > It doesn't do any good to splutter, "But my definitions are just as > > > valid for all those terms as the ones physicists use. I just reject > > > the physics definitions, and use mine instead because they are valid > > > definitions to me." If you do this, you might as well be speaking > > > Japanese. No one will understand what you're talking about. > > > > > It there no limit to your stupidity? OTOH, that is > > > > expected from an indoctrinated runt of the SRians like you. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > The meaning given to "absolute reference frame" was established long > > > > > > > before you came along and started making stuff up, Ken. > > > > > > > Then you better discard those meaning. Why? Because it is wrong.. > > > > > > No, Ken. The meaning is set up when the term is used first in physics. > > > > > You do not have the right to come in and say, "All the meanings of the > > > > > words you use in physics are wrong. Everybody should use my meanings > > > > > instead, because I like them better." You have the right to invent NEW > > > > > words, and give them your own definitions. But you cannot expect to > > > > > use terms that ALREADY are in use in physics, and ALREADY have a > > > > > specific meaning in physics, and to use them differently with > > > > > different meanings -- people will have no idea what you're talking > > > > > about, and you will fail to communicate your ideas at all. > > > > > > > > Your assertions are yours alone. You have no backup. Assertion is not > > > > > > > an argument, Ken. Your own words. You are guilty of asserting what is > > > > > > > contrary to what is known and documented, and assertion is not an > > > > > > > argument. > > > > > > > I made no assertion....the fastest running clock in the universe is a > > > > > > preferred clock and only a clock in a state of absolute rest can claim > > > > > > that. > > > > > > That is an assertion on your part. It is NOT CORRECT. > > > > > > > SR claims thaT FOR EVERY inertial observer. Such claim is valid > > > > > > only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion > > > > > > than the observer's clock. BTW that's the reason why SR is > > > > > > incomplete.....it failed to include the possibility that an observed > > > > > > clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > > > > > > 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 -
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 11:22 On Apr 24, 10:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in > > > > > > > > > > physics, and it means something completely different than what you > > > > > > > > > > have made up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > > > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > > > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > > > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > > > > > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > > > > > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is. It is not the > > > > > > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > > > > > > word that you just made up the meaning of. > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word > > > > > "preferred". > > > > > It doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. > > No idiot....it is not true for every clock. If A is predicted to run > faster than B then B must predict that A is running slower than A. No, Ken, that is not the case. I realize that this what makes sense to you, but it is not the case. Your common sense is telling you a lie. This is really basic stuff, and you're stuck on it. > These conclusions are based on the GPS clock compared to the ground > clock. From the ground clock point of view the GPS clock is running > fast by a factor of 38 us/day. From the GPS point of view the ground > clock is approx. 38us/day running slow. The GPS is not an example of this, because they are not two clocks moving INERTIALLY with respect to each other. The statement in relativity is NOT that all clocks moving relative to a clock at rest run slow. The statement is that clocks moving INERTIALLY relative to another clock will run slow. The GPS satellite is not an example of this statement and so can't be used to test this statement. However, there are lots of experimental tests that show that the following is true: In the frame where clock A is at rest, then clock B moving relative to A will run slow. In the frame where clock B is at rest, then clock A will run slow. This is experimentally demonstrated, even though you think to yourself, "But that can't be." When your common sense comes in conflict with experimental demonstration, then it's your common sense that is wrong somehow. > > Ken Seto > > >Anything that is true > > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > > relative to each other. > > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > > But it IS true for B and C. > > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C. > > In the frame where C is at rest, C is running faster than A and B. > > Since this property is also true for B and C, then it can't be that A > > is preferred in any way. But neither is B, and neither is C. > > > > I don't think so. > > > Then you are wrong, because it IS so. Measured. Whether it jives with > > your common sense or not. > > > Here's the lesson for you, Ken. If a measurement conflicts with your > > common sense, then it is time to DROP your common sense, because your > > common sense must obviously be telling you a lie. > > > > It is more likely > > > that you have a naive understanding of current physics.:-) > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > It doesn't do any good to splutter, "But my definitions are just as > > > > valid for all those terms as the ones physicists use. I just reject > > > > the physics definitions, and use mine instead because they are valid > > > > definitions to me." If you do this, you might as well be speaking > > > > Japanese. No one will understand what you're talking about. > > > > > > It there no limit to your stupidity? OTOH, that is > > > > > expected from an indoctrinated runt of the SRians like you. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > The meaning given to "absolute reference frame" was established long > > > > > > > > before you came along and started making stuff up, Ken. > > > > > > > > Then you better discard those meaning. Why? Because it is wrong. > > > > > > > No, Ken. The meaning is set up when the term is used first in physics. > > > > > > You do not have the right to come in and say, "All the meanings of the > > > > > > words you use in physics are wrong. Everybody should use my meanings > > > > > > instead, because I like them better." You have the right to invent NEW > > > > > > words, and give them your own definitions. But you cannot expect to > > > > > > use terms that ALREADY are in use in physics, and ALREADY have a > > > > > > specific meaning in physics, and to use them differently with > > > > > > different meanings -- people will have no idea what you're talking > > > > > > about, and you will fail to communicate your ideas at all. > > > > > > > > > Your assertions are yours alone. You have no backup. Assertion is not > > > > > > > > an argument, Ken. Your own words. You are guilty of asserting what is > > > > > > > > contrary to what is known and documented, and assertion is not an > > > > > > > > argument. > > > > > > > > I made no assertion....the fastest running clock in the universe is a > > > > > > > preferred clock and only a clock in a state of absolute rest can claim > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > That is an assertion on your part. It is NOT CORRECT. > > > > > > > > SR claims thaT FOR EVERY inertial observer. Such claim is valid > > > > > > > only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion > > > > > > > than the observer's clock. BTW that's the reason why SR is > > > > > > > incomplete.....it failed to include the possibility that an observed > > > > > > > clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > > > > > > > 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 - > >
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 11:25
On Apr 24, 10:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in > > > > > > > > > > physics, and it means something completely different than what you > > > > > > > > > > have made up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > > > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > > > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > > > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > > > > > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > > > > > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is. It is not the > > > > > > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > > > > > > word that you just made up the meaning of. > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word > > > > > "preferred". > > > > > It doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. Anything that is true > > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > > relative to each other. > > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > > First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame...in > case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a > preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then > from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > > > But it IS true for B and C. > > No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a > factor of gamma. No, Ken, this is wrong. It is not only predicted that A will run SLOWER than B in B's frame, but it is MEASURED that A does in fact run slower than B in B's frame. > > > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C. > > No....B is never run faster than A. This assertion is based on the > bogus SR assertion that B is adopting the laws of physics of the > absolute frame. No, it is not an empty assertion. It is an experimentally demonstrated FACT. You can deny reality all you want, but reality does not conform to your common sense, Ken. What your common sense is telling you is a LIE, Ken, and you have to force yourself to abandon it. It's the only way you'll start to make sense of what is actually OBSERVED in fact. > > Ken Seto > > > In the frame where C is at rest, C is running faster than A and B. > > Since this property is also true for B and C, then it can't be that A > > is preferred in any way. But neither is B, and neither is C. > > > > I don't think so. > > > Then you are wrong, because it IS so. Measured. Whether it jives with > > your common sense or not. > > > Here's the lesson for you, Ken. If a measurement conflicts with your > > common sense, then it is time to DROP your common sense, because your > > common sense must obviously be telling you a lie. > > > > It is more likely > > > that you have a naive understanding of current physics.:-) > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > It doesn't do any good to splutter, "But my definitions are just as > > > > valid for all those terms as the ones physicists use. I just reject > > > > the physics definitions, and use mine instead because they are valid > > > > definitions to me." If you do this, you might as well be speaking > > > > Japanese. No one will understand what you're talking about. > > > > > > It there no limit to your stupidity? OTOH, that is > > > > > expected from an indoctrinated runt of the SRians like you. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > The meaning given to "absolute reference frame" was established long > > > > > > > > before you came along and started making stuff up, Ken. > > > > > > > > Then you better discard those meaning. Why? Because it is wrong. > > > > > > > No, Ken. The meaning is set up when the term is used first in physics. > > > > > > You do not have the right to come in and say, "All the meanings of the > > > > > > words you use in physics are wrong. Everybody should use my meanings > > > > > > instead, because I like them better." You have the right to invent NEW > > > > > > words, and give them your own definitions. But you cannot expect to > > > > > > use terms that ALREADY are in use in physics, and ALREADY have a > > > > > > specific meaning in physics, and to use them differently with > > > > > > different meanings -- people will have no idea what you're talking > > > > > > about, and you will fail to communicate your ideas at all. > > > > > > > > > Your assertions are yours alone. You have no backup. Assertion is not > > > > > > > > an argument, Ken. Your own words. You are guilty of asserting what is > > > > > > > > contrary to what is known and documented, and assertion is not an > > > > > > > > argument. > > > > > > > > I made no assertion....the fastest running clock in the universe is a > > > > > > > preferred clock and only a clock in a state of absolute rest can claim > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > That is an assertion on your part. It is NOT CORRECT. > > > > > > > > SR claims thaT FOR EVERY inertial observer. Such claim is valid > > > > > > > only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion > > > > > > > than the observer's clock. BTW that's the reason why SR is > > > > > > > incomplete.....it failed to include the possibility that an observed > > > > > > > clock can run faster than the observer's clock. > > > > > > > > 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 - > > |