SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 24 Apr 2010 14:58 Sam Wormley wrote: [...] Please stop arguing with him. It has been 15 years - he is not going to learn.
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 15:19 On Apr 24, 11:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No....when you compare two clocks A and B the following two possibilities exist: 1. A runs faster than B then B runs slower than A. 2. B runs fasdter than B then A runs slower than B. There is no way that A runs faster than B and at the same time B runs faster 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. > > The GPS is not an example of this, because they are not two clocks > moving INERTIALLY with respect to each other. Surw it is a good example. The SR effect is calculated with SR equations. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. > 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. There is no inertial frame exists on earth so are you claiming that SR is not valid on earth???? > > 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." No such experiment ever been performed. Ken Seto > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 24 Apr 2010 15:25 On Apr 24, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is wrong. > > > > > > 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. No such experimental fact available. There is such SR assertion and assertion is not a valid arguement. Ken Seto > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 20:20 On Apr 24, 2:19 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 11:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No....when you compare two clocks A and B the following two > possibilities exist: > 1. A runs faster than B then B runs slower than A. > 2. B runs fasdter than B then A runs slower than B. > There is no way that A runs faster than B and at the same time B runs > faster than A. Yes, there is, Ken. You are taking this comparison to be an absolute, frame-independent statement. It is not. There are lots of physics comparisons where the relationships between two objects reverse when you switch a reference frame. These are simple things that have been noted by physicists ever since Galileo, four hundred years ago. I will give you a simple example where a relationship changes between two objects, depending on the reference frame. The relationship is "moving faster than", and we'll compare two cars, a Buick and a Dodge, as they are seen by two observers. Tom is in a red pickup truck and he looks out his window and he sees the Buick and the Dodge. In Tom's reference frame, the Buick is moving at 30 mph (relative to Tom) and the Dodge is moving at 10 mph (relative to Tom). In Tom's frame, the Buick is moving faster than the Dodge. Sally is in a blue Corvette and she looks out her window and she sees the same Buick and the Dodge. In Sally's reference frame, the Buick is moving at 5 mph (relative to Sally) and the Dodge is moving at 25 mph (relative to Sally). In Sally's frame, the Dodge is moving faster than the Buick. It is a 5th grade puzzle to figure out how to draw all this on the chalkboard so that all these statements are true. But the important thing to note is that in Tom's frame, the Buick is moving faster than the Dodge, and in Sally's frame, the Dodge is moving faster than the Buick. Since this can be drawn on the chalkboard, it cannot possibly be a logical contradiction. Both statements are absolutely correct. If you don't know how to draw this on the chalkboard, you could try asking a 5th grader to help you. So it is entirely possible that in A's frame, the A clock is faster than the B clock, and in B's frame, the B clock is faster than the A clock. Both statements are absolutely correct, and there is no logical contradiction. > > > > > > 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. > > Surw it is a good example. The SR effect is calculated with SR > equations. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the > GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow and from the GPS clock point of > view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. No, Ken, you have this wrong. > > > 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. > > There is no inertial frame exists on earth so are you claiming that SR > is not valid on earth???? Sure there are inertial reference frames. It's just that when the noninertial effects get to be larger than your measurement precision, you can't treat it as inertial anymore. We've talked about this. Or is it your contention that Newton's first law doesn't apply on Earth because there is no object on which there is no net force? > > > > > 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." > > No such experiment ever been performed. That's a lie, Ken. It's a pity you aren't more familiar with the experimental literature. > > Ken Seto > > > > > 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. > > ... > > read more »
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 20:22
On Apr 24, 2:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point > of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is > wrong. That's a lie, Ken. There are several experiments that have shown this. It would help if you would actually read and comprehend an experimental paper or five. > > > > > > > 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. > > No such experimental fact available. That's a lie, Ken. SR is backed by experimental facts, including this one. > There is such SR assertion and > assertion is not a valid arguement. Denial of documented experimental results is also not a valid argument, Ken. It's up to you to read up on it more. > > Ken Seto > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » |