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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357565 > unrolled thread

When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why?

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

Contents

  When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-07-17 01:35 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 10:41 +0200
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 05:48 -0400
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 11:54 +0200
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 06:32 -0400
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 12:48 +0200
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:10 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:04 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:31 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:20 +0200
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:29 -0700
                    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:58 +0200
                      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:45 -0700
                        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 22:02 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:26 -0700
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:42 +0200
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:10 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:16 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:35 +0200
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 06:31 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:24 -0500
    When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:29 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 13:52 +0200
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:53 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:13 +0200
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:04 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:06 -0500
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-17 21:59 +0000
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 18:39 -0400
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:24 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-18 15:10 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 19:59 -0500
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:03 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:16 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:38 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-19 16:47 -0500
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:13 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 16:35 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-20 15:04 +0200
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:28 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-18 23:36 +0200
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:30 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:35 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:22 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:43 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:59 +0200
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:06 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:18 -0700
      Stephane Baune repeats the same imbecilities as before "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-18 21:34 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-19 11:01 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:53 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:20 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:26 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:49 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:15 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-22 07:32 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 09:42 -0500
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 05:58 -0700
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:36 -0500
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 16:58 -0700
                    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:51 -0500
                      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-07 08:20 -0700
                        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:17 -0500
                          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:20 -0500
                            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:23 -0500
                              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:24 -0500
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:43 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 15:45 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-08-08 16:18 +0000
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:52 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-08-12 10:04 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#357565 — When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why?

  It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#357567

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:

>    It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>

No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
most relativistic morons.

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

#357570

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:41:54 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

>W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:
>
>>    It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>
>No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
>a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
>And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
>most relativistic morons.

         Identical clocks, one in GPS orbit,
and one on the ground, running at the
same rate, are viewed as not running
at the same rate from the ground.

         The first GPS spacecraft tried that
for 20 days, and that is what was seen.


         The effect is as if the ground is
moving upward at constant velocity,
except it does not vary with angle
like regular effects.

         It is a gravitational blue-shift,
having nothing to do with clocks.

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

#357571

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 11:48, kefischer pisze:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:41:54 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:
>>
>>>     It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>>
>> No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
>> a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
>> And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
>> most relativistic morons.
>
>           Identical clocks, one in GPS orbit,
> and one on the ground, running at the
> same rate, are viewed as not running
> at the same rate from the ground.


Irrelevant.
Question is about good clocks, not
about identical clocks.

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

#357572

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:54:45 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

>W dniu 2015-07-17 o 11:48, kefischer pisze:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:41:54 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:
>>>
>>>>     It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>>>
>>> No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
>>> a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
>>> And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
>>> most relativistic morons.
>>
>>           Identical clocks, one in GPS orbit,
>> and one on the ground, running at the
>> same rate, are viewed as not running
>> at the same rate from the ground.
>
>
>Irrelevant.
>Question is about good clocks, not
>about identical clocks.

       You need to be more specific than that,
"good clocks" does not mean they would
run at the same rate even if stationary and
side by side.

        All of the discussions here are about
relativistic redshift and blueshift and moving
clocks vs stationary clocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

https://www.aapt.org/doorway/tgrutalks/Ashby/AshbyTalk5of6.htm


       If you want to talk about clocks,
start a thread, and be as specific as
possible.

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

#357573

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 12:32, kefischer pisze:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:54:45 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 11:48, kefischer pisze:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:41:54 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>      It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
>>>> a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
>>>> And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
>>>> most relativistic morons.
>>>
>>>            Identical clocks, one in GPS orbit,
>>> and one on the ground, running at the
>>> same rate, are viewed as not running
>>> at the same rate from the ground.
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>> Question is about good clocks, not
>> about identical clocks.
>
>         You need to be more specific than that,
> "good clocks" does not mean they would
> run at the same rate even if stationary and
> side by side.

No, I don't have to. "Good" is a fuzzy term,
as it always was, and for centuries it serves us
well as a fuzzy term. Have You heard of fuzzy
terms?

And good doesn't have to be perfect. Obviously,
something good at satellite doesn't have to be
good at Earth. Though it would be good, if it
was.

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

#357771

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 1:20:13 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
 
> |Just ignore the idiot. He fails basic math problems
> 
> A lie, as expected from stupid, lying shit.

Nope, not a lie. A while back, a few 'easy' math riddles were posted here. You failed to give the correct answers whereas a few regulars here did get the correct answers. Google kept a record. Google kept a record of you ineptitude in basic math. Live with it.

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

#357790

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:4d28f793-1ca2-4a57-a49f-9ab7d114e59d@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 1:20:13 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> |Just ignore the idiot. He fails basic math problems
>
> A lie, as expected from stupid, lying shit.

|Nope, not a lie. A while back, a few 'easy' math riddles
|were posted here. You failed to give the correct answers

Yes, a lie. Either I didn't notice, or my answer was correct.
Google kept a record. Google kept a record you are a stupid,
lying shit. Live with it.

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

#357791

Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:mofi6k$3pu$1@node2.news.atman.pl...


|Yes, a lie. Either I didn't notice, or my answer was correct.
|Google kept a record. Google kept a record you are a stupid,
|lying shit. Live with it.

Google even keep record, how proud you are  about the fact,
that your lies financed your porsches. And, of course, your BMW
motorbike.

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

#357829

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:eafbb4f2-e82b-4930-b44d-456ace2b4660@googlegroups.com...

I thought again about your riddle, this one with round house
and goat, and it seems I've made a mistake.

You're still stupid lying shit, but I must admit, you know some
good tricks. Of course, if you know correct answer yourself. 

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

#357833

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:21:02 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> I thought again about your riddle, this one with round house
> and goat, and it seems I've made a mistake.

Well, I wasnt referring to that riddle, but yes, you did a mistake there too. At least you admit it.

> You're still stupid lying shit, 

Wow! How professional and scientific are you in your comments! Has such a verbose help you win a decent job?

> but I must admit, you know some good tricks. 

Very good tricks!

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

#357840

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:a4840654-3481-4a45-81e2-18a24823bb2f@googlegroups.com...

> You're still stupid lying shit,

|Wow! How professional and scientific are you in your comments!

Samely, as you are in your comments.

|Has such a verbose help you win a decent job?

I know, when to use it. And I have a decent job.
Your lies about me and McDonald were at your
normal level of stupid, lying shit.



> but I must admit, you know some good tricks.

|Very good tricks!

No. Not especially. Just good. You're overestimating
yourself. Your ability to pull words is, at most, mediocre.

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

#357846

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:58:04 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> |Has such a verbose help you win a decent job?
> 
>  And I have a decent job... McDonald 

You said it, not me! Google kept a record!

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

#357848

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:74ee1923-cd2c-4609-9dd7-ed8543bcb517@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:58:04 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> |Has such a verbose help you win a decent job?
>
>  And I have a decent job... McDonald

|You said it, not me! Google kept a record!

Oh, what a stupid lying shit you are.
But, I will disappoint you - I know a lot of stupider
lying shits, and some more stinking too.

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

#357831

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 11:29:45 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> > Another lie, as expected from stupid, lying shit.
> 
> |Well, quote me on where I said that you couldn't answer the riddle.
> 
> Why should I? Google keeps record, stupid, lying shit.
> But, no problem
> quoting:
> You failed to give the correct answers
> end quoting

In your provided quote, nowhere did I say that you couldn't answer the riddle.
So you proved that I was right when I said that you failed to give the correct answer.

You see/understand the difference? So, even though you could answer the question, you never provided the answer, hence you have not provided the correct answer. You really need to learn to read and to understand what you read! You are a very confused lad.

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

#357835

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:340a2c6d-9201-4cba-bdb6-b19e9149a59f@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 11:29:45 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> > Another lie, as expected from stupid, lying shit.
>
> |Well, quote me on where I said that you couldn't answer the riddle.
>
> Why should I? Google keeps record, stupid, lying shit.
> But, no problem
> quoting:
> You failed to give the correct answers
> end quoting

|In your provided quote, nowhere did I say that you couldn't answer the 
riddle.

I asked,whether you will pretend to be stupid.
You do.
Gosh, what a stupid lying shit you are.

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

#357826

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 2:13:19 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> His shtick is posting one-liner rants with no content. A typical troll.

It sounds like Jan the relativistic.  So, Jan the relativistic moron is advertising what Jan the relativistic moron does the best --- one-liner rants with no content --- a typical troll.  <shrug>

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

#357583

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:41:47 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:
> 
> >    It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
> >
> 
> No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
> a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
> And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
> most relativistic morons.

No.....All clocks will accumulate clock seconds at different states of absolute motion. What this mean is that a clock second is not a universal interval of time ...so you can't compare a clock seconds in different frames directly. According to the LT (SR or LET) an observer's clock second is worth 1/gamma second on a clock moving wrt him. That is the passage of a clock second on the observer's clock is corresponded to the passage of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock.

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

#357586

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 14:16, kenseto pisze:
> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:41:47 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 10:35, nero pisze:
>>
>>>     It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ?
>>>
>>
>> No, it's not. For any sane man, a good clock is
>> a clock keeping the same rate in any circumstances.
>> And it's not only for a sane man, but also for
>> most relativistic morons.
>
> No.....All clocks will accumulate clock seconds at different states of absolute motion.

Won't prove a good clock exists. Still, a clock is
our tool. That means, it's good,  when it works, as
we want it to. And we want it to  have the same rate
others have.
Physics has nothing to say in this subject, and it was
her utter foolishness to try.

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

#357589

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 8:35:06 AM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> Won't prove a good clock exists. Still, a clock is
> our tool. That means, it's good,  when it works, as
> we want it to. And we want it to  have the same rate
> others have.
> Physics has nothing to say in this subject, and it was
> her utter foolishness to try.

A "good clock" has an operational definition, hence "exists". It is a device that the standards bureaus accepted hence its a 'good clock'. Note that the operational definition contains operating ranges. But you, as always, are unaware of what goes on in physics. You just should stay in bed with your boyfriend, or, has he ditched you too?

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web