Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #586978 > unrolled thread

Standard clocks

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 22:53 -0700
    Re: Standard clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-15 10:46 -0500
      Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 09:32 -0700
        Re: Standard clocks "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 10:57 -0700
          Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 12:15 -0700
            Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-16 22:58 +0200
              Re: Standard clocks "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 17:33 -0700
                Re: Standard clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 18:08 -0700
                  Re: Standard clocks "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 18:13 -0700
        Re: Standard clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-16 16:11 -0500
          Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 22:22 -0700
            Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-17 10:36 +0200
              Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 02:52 -0700
      Re: Standard clocks Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 06:51 -0700
        Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 07:02 -0700
        Re: Standard clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-21 11:04 -0500
          Re: Standard clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-21 10:04 -0700
          Re: Standard clocks whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-21 13:25 -0500
            Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 11:38 -0700
          Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 11:28 -0700
            Re: Standard clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-21 15:16 -0500
              Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 23:29 -0700
          Re: Standard clocks Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 04:41 -0700
        Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-21 22:36 +0200
          Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 23:18 -0700
            Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-24 11:36 +0200
              Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 05:05 -0700
                Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-24 20:07 +0200
                  Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 11:26 -0700
          Re: Standard clocks Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 05:11 -0700
            Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 06:04 -0700
              Re: Standard clocks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-25 07:40 -0700
                Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 08:00 -0700
                  Re: Standard clocks Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-26 01:37 -0400
                    Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 22:52 -0700
            Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-25 20:09 +0200
              Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 11:54 -0700
                Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-25 22:36 +0200
                  Re: Standard clocks Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-25 18:14 -0400
                    Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 22:35 -0700
                    Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-26 11:22 +0200
                      Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 03:10 -0700
                        Re: Standard clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-26 14:09 +0200
                          Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 06:06 -0700
                  Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 22:28 -0700
    Re: Standard clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-15 15:05 -0700
      Re: Standard clocks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 22:13 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#586978 — Standard clocks

We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not)
timekeeping systems of importance; TAI, UTC,
GPS. Do you get it?

None of them is applying the clocks of your
wannabe standard. Do you get it?

Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
And all of you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#586995

On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.

Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.

> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.

Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are
based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of
clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply
corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all
of them).

Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in terms
of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587000

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems 
> > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of 
> which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this 
> is flat-out wrong. 

But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and 
elapsing "proper" time of yours. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587053

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems 
> > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of 
> > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks. 
> > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this 
> > is flat-out wrong.
> But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and 
> elapsing "proper" time of yours.

How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587061

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 19:57:40 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems 
> > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of 
> > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks. 
> > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this 
> > > is flat-out wrong. 
> > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and 
> > elapsing "proper" time of yours.
> How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it? 

It's not atom observed, it's the atom's radiation frequency.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587066

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 19:57:40 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > > > is flat-out wrong. 
> > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and 
> > > elapsing "proper" time of yours.
> > How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it? 

No spoonfeeding in ths kindergarten.

> It's not atom observed, it's the atom's radiation frequency.

Yes, and it doesn't really matter in principle
whether you observe many atoms simultaneously
or a single atom (or ion) repeatedly,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587077

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:58:15 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> > On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 19:57:40 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > > > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems 
> > > > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > > > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of 
> > > > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks. 
> > > > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> > > > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this 
> > > > > is flat-out wrong. 
> > > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and 
> > > > elapsing "proper" time of yours. 
> > > How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it?
> No spoonfeeding in ths kindergarten.
You belong there jan.
> > It's not atom observed, it's the atom's radiation frequency.
How is that observed?
> Yes, and it doesn't really matter in principle 
> whether you observe many atoms simultaneously 
> or a single atom (or ion) repeatedly, 

How do you watch one and count jan?
Mixed Cs atoms cannot be used as a standard.
You must stay at one.

Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587080

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

<Trolling snipped>

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587081

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 6:08:33 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> <Trolling snipped> 
> 
> Spam reported. 
> I incite others to do the same.

Can't deal with the truth crotch?
Show me where I am wrong...
That is the only way to get rid of me...
or I get rid of you.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587067

On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping 
>>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
>> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, 
>> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than 
>> atomic clocks.
>>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
>> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, 
>> this is flat-out wrong.
> 
> But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper" 
> time of yours.

Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on
such a clock at rest on earth's geoid, and UTC is equal to TAI minus 37
leap seconds (at present). GPS and TAI average many clocks, but the
clocks they use are different; GPS and TAI differ by a fixed 19 seconds
plus a variable amount typically less than 20 nanoseconds.

You keep blabbering about time systems based on earth's rotation -- that
is UT1; UT1 seconds vary in length as earth's rotation varies. UTC
seconds are the same length as TAI seconds, but UTC adds leap seconds
when appropriate to keep UTC within 1 second of UT1.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587088

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:11:40 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> >> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> >>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping 
> >>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> >> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, 
> >> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than 
> >> atomic clocks. 
> >>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> >> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, 
> >> this is flat-out wrong. 
> > 
> > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper" 
> > time of yours.
> Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on 
> such a clock 

You often admit that the clocks on GPS satellites are not 
the standard ones. But I understand perfectly why it's 
comfortable to you to pretend differently at the moment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587095

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:11:40 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > >> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > >>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping 
> > >>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > >> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, 
> > >> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than
> > >> atomic clocks. 
> > >>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> > >> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks,
> > >> this is flat-out wrong. 
> > > 
> > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper"
> > > time of yours.
> > Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on
> > such a clock 
> 
> You often admit that the clocks on GPS satellites are not 
> the standard ones.

Of course they cannot be. Their orbits are always elliptical,
so the clock rate varies over the orbit.
This effect is routinely corrected for,
to sufficient accuracy for correct GPS,
but it is not what you want in a standard clock.

> But I understand perfectly why it's 
> comfortable to you to pretend differently at the moment.

Is there anything at all that you understand,
let alone perfectly?
That's news,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587096

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 10:36:21 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> > On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:11:40 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > > On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > > >> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > >>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping 
> > > >>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > > >> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, 
> > > >> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than 
> > > >> atomic clocks. 
> > > >>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> > > >> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, 
> > > >> this is flat-out wrong. 
> > > > 
> > > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper" 
> > > > time of yours. 
> > > Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on 
> > > such a clock 
> > 
> > You often admit that the clocks on GPS satellites are not 
> > the standard ones.
> Of course they cannot be. 

Of course they cannot be. Your standards can only
be applied in your moronic gedankenwelt...:(
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587355

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems 
> > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of 
> which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this 
> is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are 
> based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of 
> clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply 
> corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all 
> of them). 
> 
> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in term
> of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state. 

There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard. Why? Because  a clock second on such a clock will represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.  
The observe'rs clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of absolute times  and this amount of absolute time is represented by  gamma seconds on a moving clock. This means that there is no clock time uni (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

The GPS   uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock as follows:i
1. The ground clock second is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of the Cs 133 atom.
2. A GPS second is refined to have 9,192,631,774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom.
3. This means that the ground clock second and the redefined GPS second will contain the same amount of absolute time..
4. And this means that the redefined GPS second and the ground clock second are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.

Ken Seto
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587357

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:51:19 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: 
> > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems 
> > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS. 
> > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of 
> > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks. 
> > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard. 
> > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this 
> > is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are 
> > based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of 
> > clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply 
> > corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all 
> > of them). 
> > 
> > Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in term
> > of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard. Why? Because a clock second on such a clock will represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. 
> The observe'rs clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of absolute times and this amount of absolute time is represented by gamma seconds on a moving clock. This means that there is no clock time uni (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. 
> 
> The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock as follows:i 
> 1. The ground clock second is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of the Cs 133 atom. 
> 2. A GPS second is refined to have 9,192,631,774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom. 
> 3. This means that the ground clock second and the redefined GPS second 

Ken, GPS second is not the redefined one, it's ordinary, some
centuries old second. The redefined one is the ISO idiocy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587369

On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
>> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> 
> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.

Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
"1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.

> Because  a clock second on such a clock will represents a different
> amount of absolute time in different frames. 

So you claim but have failed to demonstrate. You are re-defining
standard words to have your decidedly NON-standard meanings. THAT'S
HOPELESS.

> The GPS uses absolute time [...]

No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
"absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587380

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
> >> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> >
> > There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
> 
> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
> "1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.
> 
> > Because  a clock second on such a clock will represents a different
> > amount of absolute time in different frames.
> 
> So you claim but have failed to demonstrate. You are re-defining
> standard words to have your decidedly NON-standard meanings. THAT'S
> HOPELESS.
> 
> > The GPS uses absolute time [...]
> 
> No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
> define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
> "absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
> out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).
> 
> Tom Roberts

But the standard clocks that Albert Einstein used were called Cukoo
Clocks. That's a fact, right?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587386

On 6/21/2022 11:04 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
>>> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
>>
>> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
> 
> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
> "1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.
> 
>> Because  a clock second on such a clock will represents a different
>> amount of absolute time in different frames.
> 
> So you claim but have failed to demonstrate. You are re-defining
> standard words to have your decidedly NON-standard meanings. THAT'S
> HOPELESS.
> 
>> The GPS uses absolute time [...]
> 
> No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
> define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
> "absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
> out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).
> 
> Tom Roberts

"Standards" function as intended because of communal acceptance.

Bear in mind they are never absolute. Go back to your introduction to
the sciences, typically some inclined plane exercises, where you were
instructed to eliminate inconvenient data. The elimination of 
inconvenient data is the second reason why standards work.

Anomalies aren't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587391

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 20:25:59 UTC+2, whodat wrote:

> "Standards" function as intended because of communal acceptance. 

And as anyone can check in GPS, TAI, UTC - your idiocies have no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587388

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 18:04:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: 
> >> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in 
> >> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state. 
> > 
> > There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what 
> "1 second" means. 

This definition is only valid in your gedankenwelt. No serious 
timekeeping system is applying your primitive idiocy.


> > The GPS uses absolute time [...] 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to 
> define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing 
> "absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only 
> out to GPS satellite altitude (or so). 

Will you be impudent enough to lie also that it
is using your local time, poor stinker?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web