SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 15:38 On Apr 26, 2:09 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A > > > > > and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the > > > > > same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. > > > > > I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. > > > > The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in > > > > just this fashion, and that is just one example. > > > > Yes this is from the lab point of view that the life time of a > > > decaying particle is longer compared to the life time of a same > > > particle in the lab frame. However, from the moving particle point of > > > view the lab particle is not decaying slow as SR predicted....it is > > > decaying faster than the traveling particle. > > > That is not correct, Ken. From the moving particle's point of view the > > lab particle ALSO decays slower than the traveling particle. This is > > precisely what the experimental data shows, and why I pointed it out > > to you. These references have been given to you many times in years > > past. It would be good for you to get out of your chair and go to a > > library not far from you and look them up. > > No, NO....There is no actual experiment from the moving particle point > of view. > The lab particle is predicted to be decaying faster BY A FACTOR OF > GAMMA. Why? Because the moving particle clock accumulates less clock > seconds than the lab clock. > That is incorrect, Ken. There IS actual experimental data that shows this. One of the things you are missing in this connection, Ken, due to your tiny contact with the experimental literature, is that collider experiments and fixed target experiments map lots and lots of reference frames. Suppose you have two particles with relative velocity v. Very roughly, you can imagine one particle having velocity xv and the other particle having velocity (1-x)v, where x is a variable between 0 and 1. In many fixed target experiments, the value of x is 1 (so that one particle moves at v and the other at 0). In some collider experiments, the value of x is 1/2. (So that, again roughly, both move at v/2.) But if the colliding particles are hadrons, then the quarks have a momentum distribution inside them, so that you can map all values of x between 0 and 1. This is more than enough to verify mutual time dilation. It is your limited touch on the experimental data that leads you to believe that we only have data for x=1. But we have a lot more data than you think. It's up to you to get to the library and start doing some research, rather than just denying that the data exists.
From: Michael Moroney on 26 Apr 2010 20:17 PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> writes: >> Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A >> and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the >> same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. >I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. >The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in >just this fashion, and that is just one example. Could you give a simplified explanation how that worked so that (maybe) Ken could understand it? I am not familiar with this and I don't see offhand how, for example, you could have a clock co-moving with a muon beam measuring the lifetimes of stationary muons or something.
From: PD on 27 Apr 2010 12:09 On Apr 26, 7:17 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A > >> and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the > >> same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. > >I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. > >The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in > >just this fashion, and that is just one example. > > Could you give a simplified explanation how that worked so that (maybe) > Ken could understand it? I am not familiar with this and I don't see > offhand how, for example, you could have a clock co-moving with a muon > beam measuring the lifetimes of stationary muons or something. Did my recent post on this help?
From: kenseto on 28 Apr 2010 10:23 On Apr 26, 1:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >> No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference > >> >> frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. > >> >assertion is not a valid arguement. > > >> So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of > >> some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows? > >Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. > > OK, it is here that you simply don't understand SR at all. OK it is you whodon't understand SR, > > > All observed relative > >motions are born from individual motions as follows: > >Relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference > >of their absolute motion along the line joining A and B. > > I can pick any other inertial frame C so that the relative motion betwen > two objects A and B are the vector difference of A's motion relative to C > and B's motion relative to C. Nothing special whatsoever about C, as long > as it's an inertial frame. I can even pick C to be the same as either A > or B without changing anything, other than adding a simplification such > as A's motion relative to C is identically zero if C=A. All relative motions are born from individual motions. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 28 Apr 2010 10:27
On Apr 26, 1:24 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Apr 25, 11:58 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Apr 23, 10:04 am, "Peter Webb" > >> ><webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> >> Well, perhaps you would like to provide a quote from any book on Special > >> >> Relativity which says every inertial reference frame takes on the property > >> >> of the absolute frame which doesn't exist. > >> >Hey idiot can't you think for yourself? When an inertial observer > >> >claims the properties of the absolute frame he is using the absolute > >> >frame to do physics. > > >> Why not answer the guy's question rather than insult him? Show a quote > >> from any book on SR which says every inertial reference frame takes on the > >> property of the absolute frame. > >ROTFLOL....so the guy is you eh? > > No, the guy is Peter Webb. At least that's the name he posts under. > My name is Michael Moroney. > > > The anwers are in every text book as > >follows: > > [no snipping of any list of books that state every inertial reference > frame takes on the property of some absolute frame] > > >What this mean is that every SR observer calims the preferred > >properties of an absolute frame. > > You didn't answer the question. You didn't list one single book that > states every inertial reference frame takes on the property of an > absolute frame. All you did was repeat your incorrect assertation. Hey idiot the properties claimsed by every inertial observer are the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. Whe a clock is the fastest running clock in the universe it is a preferred clock or a clock is in a state of absolute rest. Ken Seto. > > >> Heck, just show a quote from any book on SR that simply states an absolute > >> frame does exist. > > You didn't answer this one, either.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |