Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #575631 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-03 09:01 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 09:01 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 17:33 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-03 19:15 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:28 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Wills Duket <nbm@tiitu.va> - 2022-02-03 19:28 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 17:18 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz goes off the rails "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-04 15:49 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-03 22:34 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-04 19:06 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 10:55 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-05 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-05 21:46 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 01:36 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:34 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-07 22:23 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:26 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:35 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 08:11 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:00 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Yasmani Kabai <yask@oennw.jp> - 2022-02-07 18:48 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 20:03 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 04:15 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Randall Hodge <tiie@ncsde.ca> - 2022-02-08 20:12 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 02:54 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:24 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 23:25 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:39 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-04 12:15 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 06:26 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 11:00 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-05 10:52 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:56 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 07:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 15:42 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:35 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 06:48 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 15:14 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-06 16:26 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 15:18 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:25 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:46 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 21:58 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-06 17:51 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-05 15:12 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-05 23:55 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:11 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-06 16:28 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:35 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-07 15:45 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-06 09:01 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:05 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-06 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:44 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:59 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-07 21:29 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 20:12 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-08 13:32 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 08:57 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-08 16:28 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:36 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:04 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:27 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:33 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:37 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:42 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:46 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 08:12 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 05:50 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-12 05:11 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 15:57 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 07:20 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 16:34 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 07:43 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 16:50 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 08:03 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:44 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-12 00:46 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-06 11:05 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 00:23 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-05 18:00 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-02-05 20:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-06 17:05 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61FEC751.4EE6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #575856 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows > > >> > > >> And your idea of time is...? > > > > > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > > > Unfortunately there is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) > > > that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? > > > Because a clock second contains a different amount of time in different frames. > > > That’s why we use the LT to figure out the clock time rate of a moving clock. > > > > > > > So all processes of nature “are operated on absolute time†except the > > processes that run clocks. > > > > Ken Seto has a very strange view of the world where trees have feathers and > > the E-matrix is obvious to common sense, which is why he lives in a home > > for people who can't take care of themselves. > > you mean he only gots two days to live??? > > he gots both feet in the grave... > > and all he gots to show for it is a science fiction pdf???? > > PUT A PILLOW ON HIS HEAD, NURSE!!!! In other words, Ken Seto pdf is highly accurate using the same laws of...7x13=28. -- 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]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1377fbf-d3da-492d-83d4-735f6b4fa586n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575842 |
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 10:31:12 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows > >> > >> And your idea of time is...? > > > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > > Unfortunately there is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) > > that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? > > Because a clock second contains a different amount of time in different frames. > > That’s why we use the LT to figure out the clock time rate of a moving clock. > > > So all processes of nature “are operated on absolute time” except the > processes that run clocks. No includes the process that run the clock. It appears that the woodworker failed to understand between clock time and absolute time. 1. At the rest frame of the clock, a clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time. 2. At the rest frame of a moving clock, a moving clock second represents a different amount of absolute time than your clock second. > > Ken Seto has a very strange view of the world where trees have feathers and > the E-matrix is obvious to common sense, which is why he lives in a home > for people who can’t take care of themselves. The woodworker failed to understand new physics. <sad>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stp7ko$1php$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576110 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 10:31:12 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> He said that: “time is what the clock shows >>>> >>>> And your idea of time is...? >>> >>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>> Unfortunately there is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) >>> that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? >>> Because a clock second contains a different amount of time in different frames. >>> That’s why we use the LT to figure out the clock time rate of a moving clock. >>> >> So all processes of nature “are operated on absolute time” except the >> processes that run clocks. > > No includes the process that run the clock. It appears that the > woodworker failed to understand between clock time and absolute time. > 1. At the rest frame of the clock, a clock second represents a specific > amount of absolute time. > 2. At the rest frame of a moving clock, a moving clock second represents > a different amount of absolute time than your clock second. Are the natural processes that run a stationary clock the same as the natural processes that run a moving clock? You said all natural processes follow one, single, absolute time. Not different processes depending on motion. >> >> Ken Seto has a very strange view of the world where trees have feathers and >> the E-matrix is obvious to common sense, which is why he lives in a home >> for people who can’t take care of themselves. > > The woodworker failed to understand new physics. <sad> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1pmwk8w.1ji9z16riz9c3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #575838 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > He said that: "time is what the clock shows > > > >And your idea of time is...? > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. Including clocks? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 07:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9ca8a86-49c7-4e6f-9565-2bc936265626n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575947 |
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > He said that: "time is what the clock shows > > > > > >And your idea of time is...? > > > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent a different mount of absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stm5sl$1ugi$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #575959 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>> >>>> And your idea of time is...? >>> >>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > > A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > a different mount of absolute time. > > Why would it express a different amount? The process that runs the clock operates on absolute time, period. When the clock moves, the processes are the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense these days. Zero. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4ad5e80-f324-445c-9bd4-aa4393b063d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575965 |
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>> > >>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>> > >>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > > > > A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > > frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > > a different mount of absolute time. > > > > > Why would it express a different amount? Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock..... the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock accumulates clock seconds at different rates. >The process that runs the clock > operates on absolute time, period. No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. >When the clock moves, the processes are > the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense > these days. Zero. You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics beyond Einstein’s failed physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stmji8$ah9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #575994 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>> >>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>> >>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. >>> >>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest >>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent >>> a different mount of absolute time. >>> >>> >> Why would it express a different amount? > Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of > the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the > absolute motion of the clock..... Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. > the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock > accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > >> The process that runs the clock >> operates on absolute time, period. > > No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on absolute time. Change your mind? > and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. > >> When the clock moves, the processes are >> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense >> these days. Zero. > > You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics > beyond Einstein’s failed physics. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 06:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d82f3bd-b4fd-4d67-8e1e-f20b944727c1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575996 |
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>>>> > >>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > >>> > >>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > >>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > >>> a different mount of absolute time. > >>> > >>> > >> Why would it express a different amount? > > Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of > > the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the > > absolute motion of the clock..... > Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of > the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. > Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a transition is different after .you moved. Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. > > > the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute motion and thus different clock rate.ate > > accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > > > >> The process that runs the clock > >> operates on absolute time, period. > > > > No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time > Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on > absolute time. Change your mind? > > and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. > > > >> When the clock moves, the processes are > >> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense > >> these days. Zero. > > > > You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics > > beyond Einstein’s failed physics. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CIiANxus-_FnYwfu8BOedUvQfMA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #576084 |
Le 06/02/2022 à 15:48, Ken Seto a écrit : > No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a transition is > different after .you moved. Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is > dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in > a different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. A clock, even accelerated, is fixed in its frame of reference. What you admit (with difficulty sometimes because there are still opponents) for the Galilean repositories, it must be pushed to the accelerated repositories. It's the same thing: for an accelerated reference frame, it is the surrounding space which accelerates around it. You have to be convinced that there is no privileged frame of reference. If I place two accelerated repositories, one to my right, one to my left, which one is accelerating relative to the other? And if I admit an initial acceleration, I place it in relation to what, to whom, where? R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 16:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <stopa9$jks$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576087 |
Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote: > Le 06/02/2022 à 15:48, Ken Seto a écrit : > >> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a >> transition is different after .you moved. Why? Because the arrival of >> this required energy is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. >> After acceleration, a clock is in a different state of absolute >> motion and thus a different clock rate. > > A clock, even accelerated, is fixed in its frame of reference. > > What you admit (with difficulty sometimes because there are still > opponents) for the Galilean repositories, it must be pushed to the > accelerated repositories. > > It's the same thing: for an accelerated reference frame, it is the > surrounding space which accelerates around it. > > You have to be convinced that there is no privileged frame of reference. > > If I place two accelerated repositories, one to my right, one to my > left, which one is accelerating relative to the other? And if I admit an > initial acceleration, I place it in relation to what, to whom, where? "repository" does not mean what you think Richard, it means "dépôt". This (not only this btw) makes your posts in English meaningless...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stoorj$ejn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576084 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. >>>>> >>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest >>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent >>>>> a different mount of absolute time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Why would it express a different amount? >>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of >>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the >>> absolute motion of the clock..... >> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of >> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. >> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. > > No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a > transition is different after .you moved. Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? > Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the > absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a > different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. >> >>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e >>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute >>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate >>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. >>> >>>> The process that runs the clock >>>> operates on absolute time, period. >>> >>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time >> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on >> absolute time. Change your mind? >>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. >>> >>>> When the clock moves, the processes are >>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense >>>> these days. Zero. >>> >>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics >>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. >>> >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 10:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7eaa6f1d-42c8-4878-8ae1-743589023111n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576089 |
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > >>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > >>>>> a different mount of absolute time. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Why would it express a different amount? > >>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of > >>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the > >>> absolute motion of the clock..... > >> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of > >> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. > >> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. > > > > No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a > > transition is different after .you moved. > Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so > absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. I didn’t say that. I said that a clock second contains a different amount of absolute time after acceleration (moving). > > You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? No.....it is the woodworker failed to comprehend new physics. > > Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the > > absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a > > different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. > >> > >>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e > >>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute > >>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate > >>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > >>> > >>>> The process that runs the clock > >>>> operates on absolute time, period. > >>> > >>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time > >> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on > >> absolute time. Change your mind? > >>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. > >>> > >>>> When the clock moves, the processes are > >>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense > >>>> these days. Zero. > >>> > >>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics > >>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stp7af$1kei$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576103 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest >>>>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent >>>>>>> a different mount of absolute time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why would it express a different amount? >>>>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of >>>>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the >>>>> absolute motion of the clock..... >>>> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of >>>> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. >>>> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. >>> >>> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a >>> transition is different after .you moved. >> Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so >> absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. > > I didn’t say that. I said that a clock second contains a different amount > of absolute time after acceleration (moving). But the moving clock is run by natural processes governed by absolute time. So you say. You didn’t say natural processes take different amounts of time depending on how they are moving. You said they go at absolute time, same for everything. >> >> You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? > > No.....it is the woodworker failed to comprehend new physics. > >>> Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the >>> absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a >>> different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. >>>> >>>>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e >>>>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute >>>>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate >>>>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. >>>>> >>>>>> The process that runs the clock >>>>>> operates on absolute time, period. >>>>> >>>>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time >>>> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on >>>> absolute time. Change your mind? >>>>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. >>>>> >>>>>> When the clock moves, the processes are >>>>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense >>>>>> these days. Zero. >>>>> >>>>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics >>>>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3fa81ed-bed2-4b16-a83e-918a08d10d25n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576116 |
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:25:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >>>>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > >>>>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > >>>>>>> a different mount of absolute time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Why would it express a different amount? > >>>>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of > >>>>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the > >>>>> absolute motion of the clock..... > >>>> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of > >>>> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. > >>>> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. > >>> > >>> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a > >>> transition is different after .you moved. > >> Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so > >> absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. > > > > I didn’t say that. I said that a clock second contains a different amount > > of absolute time after acceleration (moving). > But the moving clock is run by natural processes governed by absolute time. > So you say. All natural processes in different frames take different amount of absolute time to complete. > > You didn’t say natural processes take different amounts of time depending > on how they are moving. You said they go at absolute time, same for > everything. I didn’t say that. I said that an identical process in different frames will take a different amount of absolute time to complete. > >> > >> You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? > > > > No.....it is the woodworker failed to comprehend new physics. > > > >>> Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the > >>> absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a > >>> different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. > >>>> > >>>>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e > >>>>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute > >>>>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate > >>>>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > >>>>> > >>>>>> The process that runs the clock > >>>>>> operates on absolute time, period. > >>>>> > >>>>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time > >>>> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on > >>>> absolute time. Change your mind? > >>>>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. > >>>>> > >>>>>> When the clock moves, the processes are > >>>>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense > >>>>>> these days. Zero. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics > >>>>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stpafs$166p$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576121 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:25:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>>>>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest >>>>>>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent >>>>>>>>> a different mount of absolute time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would it express a different amount? >>>>>>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of >>>>>>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the >>>>>>> absolute motion of the clock..... >>>>>> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of >>>>>> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. >>>>>> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. >>>>> >>>>> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a >>>>> transition is different after .you moved. >>>> Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so >>>> absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. >>> >>> I didn’t say that. I said that a clock second contains a different amount >>> of absolute time after acceleration (moving). >> But the moving clock is run by natural processes governed by absolute time. >> So you say. > > All natural processes in different frames take different amount of > absolute time to complete. Then it makes no sense to say natural processes all follow absolute time, because you never know how much absolute time a process will take. Take the same process, view in different frames, and it takes a different amount of time. Doesn’t sound like following absolute time to me. >> >> You didn’t say natural processes take different amounts of time depending >> on how they are moving. You said they go at absolute time, same for >> everything. > > I didn’t say that. I said that an identical process in different frames > will take a different amount of absolute time to complete. Then those processes aren’t following absolute time, are they? Otherwise identical processes would take the same amount of absolute time. >>>> >>>> You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? >>> >>> No.....it is the woodworker failed to comprehend new physics. >>> >>>>> Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the >>>>> absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a >>>>> different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. >>>>>> >>>>>>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e >>>>>>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute >>>>>>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate >>>>>>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The process that runs the clock >>>>>>>> operates on absolute time, period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time >>>>>> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on >>>>>> absolute time. Change your mind? >>>>>>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the clock moves, the processes are >>>>>>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense >>>>>>>> these days. Zero. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics >>>>>>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 11:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70ab40bf-b599-41e9-9f48-41b73423316en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576089 |
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > >>>>> > >>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > >>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > >>>>> a different mount of absolute time. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Why would it express a different amount? > >>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of > >>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the > >>> absolute motion of the clock..... > >> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of > >> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. > >> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. > > > > No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a > > transition is different after .you moved. > Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so > absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. No idiot, the flow of absolute time is the same in all frames. It is not affected by motion or gravity. .....you can’t compare absolute time with clock time. A clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? > > Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the > > absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a > > different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. > >> > >>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e > >>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute > >>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate > >>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > >>> > >>>> The process that runs the clock > >>>> operates on absolute time, period. > >>> > >>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time > >> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on > >> absolute time. Change your mind? > >>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. > >>> > >>>> When the clock moves, the processes are > >>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense > >>>> these days. Zero. > >>> > >>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics > >>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stp7kp$1php$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576115 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest >>>>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent >>>>>>> a different mount of absolute time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why would it express a different amount? >>>>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of >>>>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the >>>>> absolute motion of the clock..... >>>> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of >>>> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. >>>> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. >>> >>> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a >>> transition is different after .you moved. >> Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so >> absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. > > No idiot, the flow of absolute time is the same in all frames. It is not > affected by motion or gravity. .....you can’t compare absolute time with clock time. Why can’t I compare clock time with absolute time? Clocks run on natural processes, so clock time is governed by a natural process. You said all natural processes follow absolute time. So clock time has to follow absolute time. > A clock second represents a different amount of absolute time > in different frames. >> >> You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? >>> Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the >>> absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a >>> different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. >>>> >>>>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e >>>>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute >>>>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate >>>>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. >>>>> >>>>>> The process that runs the clock >>>>>> operates on absolute time, period. >>>>> >>>>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time >>>> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on >>>> absolute time. Change your mind? >>>>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. >>>>> >>>>>> When the clock moves, the processes are >>>>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense >>>>>> these days. Zero. >>>>> >>>>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics >>>>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 11:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4e36ab3-7c14-4631-ae1e-98e1de54bb2en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576119 |
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:30:36 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >>>>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest > >>>>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent > >>>>>>> a different mount of absolute time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Why would it express a different amount? > >>>>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of > >>>>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the > >>>>> absolute motion of the clock..... > >>>> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of > >>>> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. > >>>> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. > >>> > >>> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a > >>> transition is different after .you moved. > >> Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so > >> absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. > > > > No idiot, the flow of absolute time is the same in all frames. It is not > > affected by motion or gravity. .....you can’t compare absolute time with clock time. > Why can’t I compare clock time with absolute time? Because clock time flows at different rates in different frame and absolute time flows at the same rate in different frames. > Clocks run on natural processes, so clock time is governed by a natural > process. > You said all natural processes follow absolute time. > So clock time has to follow absolute time. > > A clock second represents a different amount of absolute time > > in different frames. > >> > >> You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? > >>> Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the > >>> absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a > >>> different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. > >>>> > >>>>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e > >>>>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute > >>>>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate > >>>>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. > >>>>> > >>>>>> The process that runs the clock > >>>>>> operates on absolute time, period. > >>>>> > >>>>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time > >>>> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on > >>>> absolute time. Change your mind? > >>>>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. > >>>>> > >>>>>> When the clock moves, the processes are > >>>>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense > >>>>>> these days. Zero. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics > >>>>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stpafs$166p$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576123 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:30:36 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 10:18:14 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:35:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:42:16 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <setme o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, Febru ary 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>>>>>>>> Including clocks? ow a specific amount of absolute time at its rest frame. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Clock second only shows a specific amount of absolute time at the rest >>>>>>>>> frame of the clock. When the clock moves its clock second will represent >>>>>>>>> a different mount of absolute time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would it express a different amount? >>>>>>> Because it requires a specific amount of energy to make a transition of >>>>>>> the Cs 133 atom and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the >>>>>>> absolute motion of the clock..... >>>>>> Gee that sounds like a natural process, this energy making a transition of >>>>>> the cesium atom. But you said all natural processes go by absolute time. >>>>>> Now you’re saying this process doesn’t. >>>>> >>>>> No Sir, the energy (and thus the absolute time) required to make a >>>>> transition is different after .you moved. >>>> Ah so absolute time is now different after you moved. Doesn’t seem so >>>> absolute then, does it, if you can change it just by moving. >>> >>> No idiot, the flow of absolute time is the same in all frames. It is not >>> affected by motion or gravity. .....you can’t compare absolute time with clock time. >> Why can’t I compare clock time with absolute time? > > Because clock time flows at different rates in different frame and > absolute time flows at the same rate in different frames. Then the natural processes that make clocks run don’t follow absolute time. If the natural processes all followed absolute time, they’d all take the same amount of time in different frames. >> Clocks run on natural processes, so clock time is governed by a natural >> process. >> You said all natural processes follow absolute time. >> So clock time has to follow absolute time. >>> A clock second represents a different amount of absolute time >>> in different frames. >>>> >>>> You know you don’t make any sense these days, don’t you? >>>>> Why? Because the arrival of this required energy is dependent on the >>>>> absolute motion of the clock. After acceleration, a clock is in a >>>>> different state of absolute motion and thus a different clock rate. >>>>>> >>>>>>> the different state of absolute motion of the clock makes the clock e >>>>>>> state of absolute motion of the vlvokin a different state of absolute >>>>>>> motion and thus different clock rate.ate >>>>>>> accumulates clock seconds at different rates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The process that runs the clock >>>>>>>> operates on absolute time, period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No sir.....you assumed wrongly that the clock runs on absolute time >>>>>> Well, the clock runs on natural processes and you said all processes run on >>>>>> absolute time. Change your mind? >>>>>>> and that a clock second represents an interval of absolute time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the clock moves, the processes are >>>>>>>> the same. So it should show the same absolute time. You make zero sense >>>>>>>> these days. Zero. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a woodworker and that’s why you failed to understand any physics >>>>>>> beyond Einstein’s failed physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web