Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #451005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-28 08:32 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-16 10:47 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 542 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 08:32 -0800
Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 09:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 09:37 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 10:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 11:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-02 12:34 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-02 05:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-02 00:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 09:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 10:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 14:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 19:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 10:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 12:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 13:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 14:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-28 15:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 07:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-01 10:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 13:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-28 12:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-02-28 21:33 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 21:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 13:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-02-28 13:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-02-28 14:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 07:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-01 11:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 13:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 14:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 15:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 17:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-01 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 08:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-02 18:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-03 09:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-03 11:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 06:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 13:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-02-28 18:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 13:40 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-01 17:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-01 21:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 11:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-02 13:28 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-01 13:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-02 00:08 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-01 17:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 14:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 08:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 10:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 13:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 14:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-02 15:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 08:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-03 12:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 15:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-05 09:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 10:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:32 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:47 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 11:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 20:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 12:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 22:54 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 10:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 19:00 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:41 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 15:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 12:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 23:19 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 13:20 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 13:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 21:19 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:27 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:37 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 15:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-05 10:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 23:34 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-02 16:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 16:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 08:02 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 14:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-02 23:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 08:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 04:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 14:29 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 05:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-04 18:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 05:55 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 15:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 18:27 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 08:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-03 08:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 09:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 10:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 10:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 13:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 14:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 09:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 10:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 01:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 13:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 11:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 09:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-06 09:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 20:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 13:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 23:23 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 01:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 21:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 13:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 14:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:01 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 14:07 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-03 05:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-04 11:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:32 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 08:52 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 09:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 20:19 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 20:37 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 06:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-07 11:08 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 05:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 15:13 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 07:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 07:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 17:31 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:12 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-08 21:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 12:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 04:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 04:52 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 11:24 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 11:21 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:31 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 02:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 14:47 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-09 15:49 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-09 18:36 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:53 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 02:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-08 21:41 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 00:22 +0000
Just more BULL SHIT eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-02 09:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 13:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-02 13:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-03 09:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-03 10:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 16:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 07:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 07:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 14:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 22:47 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 15:07 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 23:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 07:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 11:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:59 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 14:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 07:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:04 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-08 07:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:49 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 15:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 18:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-05 07:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 12:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-02 07:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-01 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 14:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-02-28 22:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 13:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-01 11:32 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-02 09:04 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-01 15:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-02 11:43 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 09:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-02 22:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 11:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 20:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 11:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 10:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 17:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-06 22:35 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-04 11:43 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-03 21:13 -0500
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-03 20:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-04 10:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:13 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-02 14:19 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-02 12:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 20:55 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 14:21 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-03 14:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-03 20:44 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-04 11:40 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 10:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-05 08:28 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-05 18:05 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-06 11:24 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 13:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-07 13:11 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 09:10 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 14:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 21:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-08 06:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-07 17:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-08 11:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 13:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-08 15:38 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-09 10:56 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 15:07 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-09 11:49 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 19:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 20:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-03 20:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 12:21 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 12:27 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-04 12:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 13:03 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 08:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 09:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:13 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 07:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 16:46 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 07:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:35 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:40 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-06 15:43 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 16:10 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:18 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:26 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 10:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:09 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 14:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 23:18 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 14:47 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 08:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-08 17:32 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:01 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 15:30 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 12:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-07 19:09 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:42 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 20:49 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:51 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-04 11:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 08:43 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 06:54 -0700
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-05 17:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 13:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-04 23:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 09:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:09 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 10:34 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-05 11:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 22:55 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 09:38 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-06 11:06 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:15 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-06 09:26 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-05 12:35 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:17 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-01 21:28 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 18:29 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-04 09:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-04 10:23 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 15:18 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 08:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:05 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:04 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:07 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-06 16:29 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:21 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 07:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-07 13:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-07 13:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:06 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 15:58 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-05 14:00 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 08:40 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 12:30 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 19:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-06 19:10 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 14:22 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-06 20:43 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 08:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:00 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:25 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-07 16:55 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 08:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 09:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 12:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:31 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-09 06:33 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 23:02 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 12:27 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 04:36 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:00 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 08:41 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:30 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-09 11:17 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 09:32 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:59 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-10 23:44 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:06 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:09 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:07 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-05 17:19 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-06 18:47 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-05 14:12 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-05 23:24 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-05 16:28 -0600
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 09:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 12:52 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-06 23:25 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:36 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:46 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:45 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:54 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 19:33 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:11 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:44 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 12:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-07 01:39 +0100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-06 20:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:24 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 14:14 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-06 13:14 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-06 12:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 23:16 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:48 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 13:01 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 16:53 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 22:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:55 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 00:17 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:25 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 10:48 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 10:49 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 11:08 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-08 19:39 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-08 15:16 +1100
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-07 20:42 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-07 13:13 -0800
Re: Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 10:47 +0000
Page 2 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 28 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 12:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7b503266-57ec-43d4-8fd0-e904a842c759@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451039 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:55:47 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:42:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:33:00 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > > > > > > > > > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, of course, since the moved clocks showed a different amount of time had passed, that means they ticked at different RATES because time moved at different RATES for the traveling clocks versus the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Tom Roberts endlessly argues that high-speed movement does NOT cause clocks to tick at different rates nor does it cause TIME to move at different rates, nor does the distance from a gravitational source result in different rates, and he believes that applies to the Hafele-Keating clocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > His attempts at explaining his beliefs clearly indicate he is confused over the difference between clock tick RATES and clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > The official length of a second is defined as "The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > > > > > > > In simple terms, a second is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium atomic clock. That means that when the clock has COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, it has measured 1 second. If a different method of measuring time were used, it would be a different number (COUNT) of ticks per second. The important point is: It's not a tick RATE, it is a tick COUNT. When you have COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, you have measured 1 second. And that is true whether you are atop a mountain, at the bottom of a mountain or traveling at 95% of the speed of light. A second is measured by COUNTING clock ticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the tick RATE is different at the top of a mountain than at the bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are traveling versus being stationary. Relativity is about clock tick RATES, not clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 the difference between rates and counts by explaining what can be very different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same in ALL inertial reference frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > Same: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fundamental constants are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The speed of light is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Different: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Velocity is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Acceleration is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Force is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > The key difference is #1: Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand this, Tom? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > I also checked page 962 of the college physics textbook "Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli. It basically agrees with "Spacetime Physics" on the definition of "proper time," but Giancoli specifically applies it to "the shortest time between [two] events ANY OBSERVER can measure." > > > > > > > > > > The 9th edition of "College Physics" by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille says on page 892: "In general, proper time is the time interval between two events as measured by AN OBSERVER who sees the events occur at the same position." > > > > > > > > > > Page 1116 of the 10th edition of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl Walker says, "If two successive events occur at the same place in an inertial reference frame, the time interval between them, measured on a single clock where they occur, is the proper time between them." > > > > > > > > > > Page 1224 of the 14th edition of "University Physics with Modern Physics" by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman says, "We use the term proper time to describe the time interval between two events that occur at the same point." > > > > > > > > > > I think the definition in "Spacetime Physics" is definitely the best. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > So what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how > > > > are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > I described the considered events in my post at the top of this thread and I described how they are related to elapsed proper time. What is it you do not understand? > > > > > > Ed > > > > No you did not describe any events. You just wrote: > > > > "So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories." > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > Can't you read? The events are the comparison of clocks at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the experiment. They performed the experiment twice, and then they matched their results to mathematical models using Einstein's formulas for SR and GR. If you want further information, the papers Hafele and Keating wrote are at this link: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > > "Elapsed proper time" is the "proper time" between the two events (1) when the clocks were set and (2) when the clocks were compared. They compared one "proper time" for the traveling clocks against another "proper time" for the stationary clock. > > Ed Paparios, If you are not familiar with the Hafele-Keating experiment, what they did was first do all the computations with mathematical models of what SHOULD happen in real life when they flew the 4 clocks around the world. They wrote a paper about what SHOULD happen - what the Time Dilation results SHOULD BE. That is what mathematical models are for. Then they actually flew the clocks around the world in REAL LIFE. And when they were done, they compared their MATHEMATICAL MODEL results to the REAL LIFE results and they wrote a second paper about how close the model was to real life. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faa67abe-f0d1-433d-87e5-8a848253140b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451039 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:55:47 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:42:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:33:00 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > > > > > > > > > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, of course, since the moved clocks showed a different amount of time had passed, that means they ticked at different RATES because time moved at different RATES for the traveling clocks versus the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Tom Roberts endlessly argues that high-speed movement does NOT cause clocks to tick at different rates nor does it cause TIME to move at different rates, nor does the distance from a gravitational source result in different rates, and he believes that applies to the Hafele-Keating clocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > His attempts at explaining his beliefs clearly indicate he is confused over the difference between clock tick RATES and clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > The official length of a second is defined as "The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > > > > > > > In simple terms, a second is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium atomic clock. That means that when the clock has COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, it has measured 1 second. If a different method of measuring time were used, it would be a different number (COUNT) of ticks per second. The important point is: It's not a tick RATE, it is a tick COUNT. When you have COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, you have measured 1 second. And that is true whether you are atop a mountain, at the bottom of a mountain or traveling at 95% of the speed of light. A second is measured by COUNTING clock ticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the tick RATE is different at the top of a mountain than at the bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are traveling versus being stationary. Relativity is about clock tick RATES, not clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 the difference between rates and counts by explaining what can be very different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same in ALL inertial reference frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > Same: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fundamental constants are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The speed of light is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Different: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Velocity is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Acceleration is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Force is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > The key difference is #1: Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand this, Tom? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > I also checked page 962 of the college physics textbook "Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli. It basically agrees with "Spacetime Physics" on the definition of "proper time," but Giancoli specifically applies it to "the shortest time between [two] events ANY OBSERVER can measure." > > > > > > > > > > The 9th edition of "College Physics" by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille says on page 892: "In general, proper time is the time interval between two events as measured by AN OBSERVER who sees the events occur at the same position." > > > > > > > > > > Page 1116 of the 10th edition of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl Walker says, "If two successive events occur at the same place in an inertial reference frame, the time interval between them, measured on a single clock where they occur, is the proper time between them." > > > > > > > > > > Page 1224 of the 14th edition of "University Physics with Modern Physics" by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman says, "We use the term proper time to describe the time interval between two events that occur at the same point." > > > > > > > > > > I think the definition in "Spacetime Physics" is definitely the best. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > So what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how > > > > are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > I described the considered events in my post at the top of this thread and I described how they are related to elapsed proper time. What is it you do not understand? > > > > > > Ed > > > > No you did not describe any events. You just wrote: > > > > "So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories." > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > Can't you read? > > Ed Fa Fa Fooey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_cPir6MwLM 1.70377849e53 kg *(c * planck length/ 2 m )^2 = Joules
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f62fc98b-4062-4928-b41c-6c384fd174cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451047 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:00:46 PM UTC-6, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:55:47 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:42:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:33:00 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, of course, since the moved clocks showed a different amount of time had passed, that means they ticked at different RATES because time moved at different RATES for the traveling clocks versus the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Tom Roberts endlessly argues that high-speed movement does NOT cause clocks to tick at different rates nor does it cause TIME to move at different rates, nor does the distance from a gravitational source result in different rates, and he believes that applies to the Hafele-Keating clocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > His attempts at explaining his beliefs clearly indicate he is confused over the difference between clock tick RATES and clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The official length of a second is defined as "The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In simple terms, a second is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium atomic clock. That means that when the clock has COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, it has measured 1 second. If a different method of measuring time were used, it would be a different number (COUNT) of ticks per second. The important point is: It's not a tick RATE, it is a tick COUNT. When you have COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, you have measured 1 second. And that is true whether you are atop a mountain, at the bottom of a mountain or traveling at 95% of the speed of light. A second is measured by COUNTING clock ticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the tick RATE is different at the top of a mountain than at the bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are traveling versus being stationary. Relativity is about clock tick RATES, not clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 the difference between rates and counts by explaining what can be very different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same in ALL inertial reference frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fundamental constants are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The speed of light is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Different: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Velocity is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Acceleration is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Force is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The key difference is #1: Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand this, Tom? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > I also checked page 962 of the college physics textbook "Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli. It basically agrees with "Spacetime Physics" on the definition of "proper time," but Giancoli specifically applies it to "the shortest time between [two] events ANY OBSERVER can measure." > > > > > > > > > > > > The 9th edition of "College Physics" by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille says on page 892: "In general, proper time is the time interval between two events as measured by AN OBSERVER who sees the events occur at the same position." > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 1116 of the 10th edition of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl Walker says, "If two successive events occur at the same place in an inertial reference frame, the time interval between them, measured on a single clock where they occur, is the proper time between them." > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 1224 of the 14th edition of "University Physics with Modern Physics" by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman says, "We use the term proper time to describe the time interval between two events that occur at the same point." > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the definition in "Spacetime Physics" is definitely the best. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > So what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how > > > > > are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > > > I described the considered events in my post at the top of this thread and I described how they are related to elapsed proper time. What is it you do not understand? > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > No you did not describe any events. You just wrote: > > > > > > "So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories." > > > > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > Can't you read? > > > > Ed > > Fa Fa Fooey > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_cPir6MwLM > > 1.70377849e53 kg *(c * planck length/ 2 m )^2 = Joules ((c / (1.70377849e53 kg)) / hbar) * 4 = 6.67408002e-11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_cPir6MwLM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <81a3c396-4c22-493f-bec7-96d1e5628cb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451054 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:23:04 PM UTC-6, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:00:46 PM UTC-6, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:55:47 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 14:42:46 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:33:00 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, of course, since the moved clocks showed a different amount of time had passed, that means they ticked at different RATES because time moved at different RATES for the traveling clocks versus the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Tom Roberts endlessly argues that high-speed movement does NOT cause clocks to tick at different rates nor does it cause TIME to move at different rates, nor does the distance from a gravitational source result in different rates, and he believes that applies to the Hafele-Keating clocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > His attempts at explaining his beliefs clearly indicate he is confused over the difference between clock tick RATES and clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The official length of a second is defined as "The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In simple terms, a second is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium atomic clock. That means that when the clock has COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, it has measured 1 second. If a different method of measuring time were used, it would be a different number (COUNT) of ticks per second. The important point is: It's not a tick RATE, it is a tick COUNT. When you have COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, you have measured 1 second. And that is true whether you are atop a mountain, at the bottom of a mountain or traveling at 95% of the speed of light. A second is measured by COUNTING clock ticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the tick RATE is different at the top of a mountain than at the bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are traveling versus being stationary. Relativity is about clock tick RATES, not clock tick COUNTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 the difference between rates and counts by explaining what can be very different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same in ALL inertial reference frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fundamental constants are the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The speed of light is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Different: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Velocity is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Acceleration is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Force is not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The key difference is #1: Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand this, Tom? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also checked page 962 of the college physics textbook "Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli. It basically agrees with "Spacetime Physics" on the definition of "proper time," but Giancoli specifically applies it to "the shortest time between [two] events ANY OBSERVER can measure." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 9th edition of "College Physics" by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille says on page 892: "In general, proper time is the time interval between two events as measured by AN OBSERVER who sees the events occur at the same position." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 1116 of the 10th edition of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl Walker says, "If two successive events occur at the same place in an inertial reference frame, the time interval between them, measured on a single clock where they occur, is the proper time between them." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Page 1224 of the 14th edition of "University Physics with Modern Physics" by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman says, "We use the term proper time to describe the time interval between two events that occur at the same point." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the definition in "Spacetime Physics" is definitely the best. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > So what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how > > > > > > are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > > > > > I described the considered events in my post at the top of this thread and I described how they are related to elapsed proper time. What is it you do not understand? > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > No you did not describe any events. You just wrote: > > > > > > > > "So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories." > > > > > > > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > Can't you read? > > > > > > Ed > > > > Fa Fa Fooey > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_cPir6MwLM > > > > 1.70377849e53 kg *(c * planck length/ 2 m )^2 = Joules > > ((c / (1.70377849e53 kg)) / hbar) * 4 = 6.67408002e-11 1.70377849e53 kg *(c * planck length/ 2 m )^2 = Joules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Mass_of_ordinary_matter Hickory Dickory Docks The Mice were watching the Clocks https://youtu.be/6lTnnu3XLFk?t=10m48s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <34f3795c-bd10-4534-89c6-4696e7326b60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451039 |
El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 17:06:39 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > Can't you read? The events are the comparison of clocks at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the experiment. They performed the experiment twice, and then they matched their results to mathematical models using Einstein's formulas for SR and GR. If you want further information, the papers Hafele and Keating wrote are at this link: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > It is a little more than what you say. All the atomic clocks were together, and their readings were recorded, at the START event of the REAL experiment (see the post from Dr. Andersen where he explains this). Then some of the clocks were flown East and their readings were compared with the clock who was not flown at the END event of the REAL experiment (the results of the REAL experiment were the flown clocks lost −59 ±10 nanoseconds). A similar experiment was performed, now with the clocks been flown in the West direction, with the results being they gained +273 ±7 nanoseconds. Those two results are the elapsed proper time difference between the flown clock and the ground clock. Note that the direction of the flight affected the result. Do you know why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c2115acd-b546-4836-aed6-6808948ebdd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451053 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:21:26 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 17:06:39 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > Can't you read? The events are the comparison of clocks at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the experiment. They performed the experiment twice, and then they matched their results to mathematical models using Einstein's formulas for SR and GR. If you want further information, the papers Hafele and Keating wrote are at this link: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > > > > It is a little more than what you say. All the atomic clocks were together, and their readings were recorded, at the START event of the REAL experiment (see the post from Dr. Andersen where he explains this). Then some of the clocks were flown East and their readings were compared with the clock who was not flown at the END event of the REAL experiment (the results of the REAL experiment were the flown clocks lost −59 ±10 nanoseconds). A similar experiment was performed, now with the clocks been flown in the West direction, with the results being they gained +273 ±7 nanoseconds. > > Those two results are the elapsed proper time difference between the flown clock and the ground clock. > > Note that the direction of the flight affected the result. Do you know why? Yes, of course I know why. It is a big part of the papers they wrote. When flying eastward, they are moving in the same direction the earth is spinning, so their speed is added to the speed of the earth. When going westward, the opposite is the case. Their speed is subtracted from the rotation speed of the earth. Incidentally, that is why Cape Canaveral satellite launch site is on the East Coast, and so is the one in French Guiana. It saves them lots of fuel because the rockets are already going at 1000 mph before they even start their launch. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5bcefbbd-05de-45c7-8522-62ab8884aa62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451055 |
El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 18:30:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:21:26 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 17:06:39 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > Can't you read? The events are the comparison of clocks at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the experiment. They performed the experiment twice, and then they matched their results to mathematical models using Einstein's formulas for SR and GR. If you want further information, the papers Hafele and Keating wrote are at this link: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > > > > > > > It is a little more than what you say. All the atomic clocks were together, and their readings were recorded, at the START event of the REAL experiment (see the post from Dr. Andersen where he explains this). Then some of the clocks were flown East and their readings were compared with the clock who was not flown at the END event of the REAL experiment (the results of the REAL experiment were the flown clocks lost −59 ±10 nanoseconds). A similar experiment was performed, now with the clocks been flown in the West direction, with the results being they gained +273 ±7 nanoseconds. > > > > Those two results are the elapsed proper time difference between the flown clock and the ground clock. > > > > Note that the direction of the flight affected the result. Do you know why? > > Yes, of course I know why. It is a big part of the papers they wrote. When flying eastward, they are moving in the same direction the earth is spinning, so their speed is added to the speed of the earth. When going westward, the opposite is the case. Their speed is subtracted from the rotation speed of the earth. > Correct, but now consider this: in the two REAL experiments, the clocks were flown at about the same altitude of around 33000 feet. However, in the East flight the clocks lost nanoseconds while in the West flight the clocks gained nanoseconds. What is what is generating this difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95e46efa-5b98-478c-9ae5-6e036f67fc8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451059 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:44:45 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 18:30:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:21:26 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 28 de febrero de 2018, 17:06:39 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:05:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, again, what are the events to be considered in the Hafele Keating experiment and how are they related to the elapsed proper time? > > > > > > > > Can't you read? The events are the comparison of clocks at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the experiment. They performed the experiment twice, and then they matched their results to mathematical models using Einstein's formulas for SR and GR. If you want further information, the papers Hafele and Keating wrote are at this link: https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > > > > > > > > > > It is a little more than what you say. All the atomic clocks were together, and their readings were recorded, at the START event of the REAL experiment (see the post from Dr. Andersen where he explains this). Then some of the clocks were flown East and their readings were compared with the clock who was not flown at the END event of the REAL experiment (the results of the REAL experiment were the flown clocks lost −59 ±10 nanoseconds). A similar experiment was performed, now with the clocks been flown in the West direction, with the results being they gained +273 ±7 nanoseconds. > > > > > > Those two results are the elapsed proper time difference between the flown clock and the ground clock. > > > > > > Note that the direction of the flight affected the result. Do you know why? > > > > Yes, of course I know why. It is a big part of the papers they wrote. When flying eastward, they are moving in the same direction the earth is spinning, so their speed is added to the speed of the earth. When going westward, the opposite is the case. Their speed is subtracted from the rotation speed of the earth. > > > > Correct, but now consider this: in the two REAL experiments, the clocks were flown at about the same altitude of around 33000 feet. However, in the East flight the clocks lost nanoseconds while in the West flight the clocks gained nanoseconds. What is what is generating this difference? I explained that in my earlier reply to a post by Paul Anderson. Here is what I wrote: "The clocks "know how" to change their frequency because there is a NATURAL LIMIT to how fast they they can tick. There is an upper limit to their frequency. That upper limit is the speed of light. "The clocks are already ticking at nearly the speed of light when they are stationary. So, when you put the clock in motion, the lateral velocity cannot be added to the vibration velocity. It's Einstein's Second Postulate: the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the EMITTER." When the clock is going eastward, the speed of its vibrations are bumping harder against the maximum speed at which anything can move in this universe. It has the flight speed combined with the earth rotation speed. Say 1,040 mph for the speed of the earth at the equator + 500 mph for the speed of the plane. When the clock is going westward, the speed of its vibrations is less seriously affected by the combined speeds of the plane and the earth. It's 1,040 mph MINUS 500 mph. This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p76vn5$1emv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #451015 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:33:00 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: >> A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he >> believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at >> different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: >> >> Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. >> >> How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock >> rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable >> to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an >> Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald >> Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": >> >> --- start quote --- >> >> When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that >> special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. >> The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). >> The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name >> proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the >> proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to >> emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at >> each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the >> word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very >> own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the >> English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following >> conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! >> >> --- end quote --- >> >> So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." And what >> Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the >> local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. >> First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same >> rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 >> atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they >> again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval >> Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed >> the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The >> experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different >> amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming >> Einstein's theories. >> >> And, of course, since the moved clocks showed a different amount of time >> had passed, that means they ticked at different RATES because time moved >> at different RATES for the traveling clocks versus the Naval Observatory clock. >> >> But, Tom Roberts endlessly argues that high-speed movement does NOT >> cause clocks to tick at different rates nor does it cause TIME to move >> at different rates, nor does the distance from a gravitational source >> result in different rates, and he believes that applies to the Hafele-Keating clocks. >> >> His attempts at explaining his beliefs clearly indicate he is confused >> over the difference between clock tick RATES and clock tick COUNTS. >> >> The official length of a second is defined as "The duration of >> 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition >> between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." >> >> In simple terms, a second is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium atomic >> clock. That means that when the clock has COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, >> it has measured 1 second. If a different method of measuring time were >> used, it would be a different number (COUNT) of ticks per second. The >> important point is: It's not a tick RATE, it is a tick COUNT. When you >> have COUNTED 9,192,631,770 ticks, you have measured 1 second. And that >> is true whether you are atop a mountain, at the bottom of a mountain or >> traveling at 95% of the speed of light. A second is measured by COUNTING clock ticks. >> >> However, the tick RATE is different at the top of a mountain than at the >> bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are traveling versus >> being stationary. Relativity is about clock tick RATES, not clock tick COUNTS. >> >> "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. >> Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler explains in sections 3.2 and 3.3 the >> difference between rates and counts by explaining what can be very >> different in different inertial reference frames versus what is the same >> in ALL inertial reference frames. >> >> Same: >> >> 1. Laws of physics are the same in different frames. >> >> 2. Fundamental constants are the same. >> >> 3. The speed of light is the same. >> >> Different: >> >> 1. Space and time separations are not the same in different frames. >> >> 2. Velocity is not the same. >> >> 3. Acceleration is not the same. >> >> 4. Force is not the same. >> >> 5. Electric and magnetic fields not the same. >> >> The key difference is #1: Space and time separations are not the same in >> different frames. That means that the separations between ticks of a >> clock (a.k.a. the TICK RATE) can be different in one frame versus >> another. And, if there is a greater interval or separation between >> ticks, that means that time is going slower even though you may still be >> COUNTING 9,192,631,770 ticks when measuring 1 second. >> >> Do you understand this, Tom? >> >> Ed > > I also checked page 962 of the college physics textbook "Physics for > Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli. It > basically agrees with "Spacetime Physics" on the definition of "proper > time," but Giancoli specifically applies it to "the shortest time between > [two] events ANY OBSERVER can measure." > > The 9th edition of "College Physics" by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > says on page 892: "In general, proper time is the time interval between > two events as measured by AN OBSERVER who sees the events occur at the same position." > > Page 1116 of the 10th edition of "Fundamentals of Physics" by Jearl > Walker says, "If two successive events occur at the same place in an > inertial reference frame, the time interval between them, measured on a > single clock where they occur, is the proper time between them." > > Page 1224 of the 14th edition of "University Physics with Modern Physics" > by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman says, "We use the term proper time > to describe the time interval between two events that occur at the same point." > > I think the definition in "Spacetime Physics" is definitely the best. > > Ed > And you do not understand why they all are equivalent? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5A96F995.377B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #451005 |
When does the clock run slower or faster?
The operative word is "When".
when
(h)wen/
adverb
adverb: when
1.
at what time.
In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster..
at a certain time.
At what time?
When?
When does the clock run
slower
or faster?
When?
At what time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf0e0027-733d-47af-9e00-8a090213a376@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451025 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:48:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > when > (h)wen/ > adverb > adverb: when > > 1. > at what time. > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > at a certain time. > > > At what time? > > > When? > > > When does the clock run > > slower > > or faster? > > > When? > > > At what time? To whom is this question addressed? The answer should be obvious. The 4 clocks that were carried aboard the aircraft started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location where they were set to agree with the Naval Observatory clock. And the total difference in elapsed time ended when the 4 clocks were again placed side by side with the Naval Observatory clock. There may have been times during the experiment when the 4 clocks were on the ground somewhere and were coincidentally ticking at the same rate as the Naval Observatory clock, but that would be irrelevant to the experiment, since the experiment was only concerned with the difference in TOTAL elapsed time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5A972612.2179@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #451040 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:48:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > > > > > when > > (h)wen/ > > adverb > > adverb: when > > > > 1. > > at what time. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > > > > at a certain time. > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > When? > > > > > > When does the clock run > > > > slower > > > > or faster? > > > > > > When? > > > > > > At what time? > > To whom is this question addressed? The answer should be obvious. > > The 4 clocks that were carried aboard the aircraft started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location where they were set to agree with the Naval Observatory clock. And the total difference in elapsed time ended when the 4 clocks were again placed side by side with the Naval Observatory clock. > > There may have been times during the experiment when the 4 clocks were on the ground somewhere and were coincidentally ticking at the same rate as the Naval Observatory clock, but that would be irrelevant to the experiment, since the experiment was only concerned with the difference in TOTAL elapsed time. > > Ed So, are you saying the second the test is perfomed, "started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location", that the clock started running faster the moment they moved the clock???? Does that mean, it continues running faster until the test is finished? So, all that time it's running faster while the test is being performed? Has that been measured?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 14:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6098be96-94ed-479b-96d4-b1d2d57088fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451063 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:58:28 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:48:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > > > > > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > (h)wen/ > > > adverb > > > adverb: when > > > > > > 1. > > > at what time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > > > > > > > at a certain time. > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > When does the clock run > > > > > > slower > > > > > > or faster? > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > To whom is this question addressed? The answer should be obvious. > > > > The 4 clocks that were carried aboard the aircraft started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location where they were set to agree with the Naval Observatory clock. And the total difference in elapsed time ended when the 4 clocks were again placed side by side with the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > There may have been times during the experiment when the 4 clocks were on the ground somewhere and were coincidentally ticking at the same rate as the Naval Observatory clock, but that would be irrelevant to the experiment, since the experiment was only concerned with the difference in TOTAL elapsed time. > > > > Ed > > > So, are you saying the second the test is perfomed, "started running > faster as soon as they were moved away from the location", that the > clock > started running faster the moment they moved the clock???? Does that > mean, it continues running faster until the test is finished? So, all > that time > it's running faster while the test is being performed? Has that been > measured? Yes, it's been measured. That is what the Hafele-Keating experiment DID. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 15:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5A973BE9.3FB9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #451064 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:58:28 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:48:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > > > > > > > > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > (h)wen/ > > > > adverb > > > > adverb: when > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > at what time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > > > > > > > > > > at a certain time. > > > > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > > > > When does the clock run > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > or faster? > > > > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > To whom is this question addressed? The answer should be obvious. > > > > > > The 4 clocks that were carried aboard the aircraft started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location where they were set to agree with the Naval Observatory clock. And the total difference in elapsed time ended when the 4 clocks were again placed side by side with the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > There may have been times during the experiment when the 4 clocks were on the ground somewhere and were coincidentally ticking at the same rate as the Naval Observatory clock, but that would be irrelevant to the experiment, since the experiment was only concerned with the difference in TOTAL elapsed time. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > So, are you saying the second the test is perfomed, "started running > > faster as soon as they were moved away from the location", that the > > clock > > started running faster the moment they moved the clock???? Does that > > mean, it continues running faster until the test is finished? So, all > > that time > > it's running faster while the test is being performed? Has that been > > measured? > > Yes, it's been measured. That is what the Hafele-Keating experiment DID. > > Ed Sorry, I didn't see any mentioned of "When" it ran faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 07:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b00bd476-6a8b-4462-9fe9-85a002eea1be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451078 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 5:31:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:58:28 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:48:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > (h)wen/ > > > > > adverb > > > > > adverb: when > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > at what time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at a certain time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does the clock run > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > or faster? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > > > To whom is this question addressed? The answer should be obvious. > > > > > > > > The 4 clocks that were carried aboard the aircraft started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location where they were set to agree with the Naval Observatory clock. And the total difference in elapsed time ended when the 4 clocks were again placed side by side with the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > > > There may have been times during the experiment when the 4 clocks were on the ground somewhere and were coincidentally ticking at the same rate as the Naval Observatory clock, but that would be irrelevant to the experiment, since the experiment was only concerned with the difference in TOTAL elapsed time. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > So, are you saying the second the test is perfomed, "started running > > > faster as soon as they were moved away from the location", that the > > > clock > > > started running faster the moment they moved the clock???? Does that > > > mean, it continues running faster until the test is finished? So, all > > > that time > > > it's running faster while the test is being performed? Has that been > > > measured? > > > > Yes, it's been measured. That is what the Hafele-Keating experiment DID. > > > > Ed > > > Sorry, I didn't see any mentioned of "When" it ran faster. I'm not sure what it is you do not understand. What Hafele & Keating did was first COMPUTE how much faster (or slower) time would move while carrying 4 atomic clocks on airplanes traveling around the world. Then the actually did the flights. And they compared the expected results to he actual results. They found (or example) that time ran much faster when they were traveling east, because the earth was also spinning toward the east. So, the speed of their aircraft was added to the speed of the rotating earth. WHEN did the clock run faster? It ran faster while they were traveling. It ran faster when they were traveling east than when they were traveling west. It ran faster when the plane was at cruising speed than when it was taking off. What is it you do not understand about that? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 10:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5A983FB7.17F7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #451107 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 5:31:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 3:58:28 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:48:59 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > (h)wen/ > > > > > > adverb > > > > > > adverb: when > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > at what time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at a certain time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When does the clock run > > > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > > > or faster? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At what time? > > > > > > > > > > To whom is this question addressed? The answer should be obvious. > > > > > > > > > > The 4 clocks that were carried aboard the aircraft started running faster as soon as they were moved away from the location where they were set to agree with the Naval Observatory clock. And the total difference in elapsed time ended when the 4 clocks were again placed side by side with the Naval Observatory clock. > > > > > > > > > > There may have been times during the experiment when the 4 clocks were on the ground somewhere and were coincidentally ticking at the same rate as the Naval Observatory clock, but that would be irrelevant to the experiment, since the experiment was only concerned with the difference in TOTAL elapsed time. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > So, are you saying the second the test is perfomed, "started running > > > > faster as soon as they were moved away from the location", that the > > > > clock > > > > started running faster the moment they moved the clock???? Does that > > > > mean, it continues running faster until the test is finished? So, all > > > > that time > > > > it's running faster while the test is being performed? Has that been > > > > measured? > > > > > > Yes, it's been measured. That is what the Hafele-Keating experiment DID. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Sorry, I didn't see any mentioned of "When" it ran faster. > > I'm not sure what it is you do not understand. What Hafele & Keating did was first COMPUTE how much faster (or slower) time would move while carrying 4 atomic clocks on airplanes traveling around the world. > > Then the actually did the flights. And they compared the expected results to he actual results. They found (or example) that time ran much faster when they were traveling east, because the earth was also spinning toward the east. So, the speed of their aircraft was added to the speed of the rotating earth. > > WHEN did the clock run faster? It ran faster while they were traveling. It ran faster when they were traveling east than when they were traveling west. It ran faster when the plane was at cruising speed than when it was taking off. > > What is it you do not understand about that? > > Ed The question is not does the clock run faster.. the question is When does the clock run faster. At what time, at what point in time does it run faster? For example, if the test took one hour to perform.. and the result was the clock ran faster by one second within that hour, and there are 60 minutes in an hour.. 'when' did the clock run faster, which minute of the 60 minutes? Did it run faster the first second of the hour and then stopped? Did it run faster a half an hour later for one second? If the test took two weeks to perform, which day of the week did it run faster?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-01 13:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <24d4d793-af96-432d-802b-2ef6e6da11c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451117 |
On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 12:00:32 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > > The question is not does the clock run faster.. > > the question is When does the clock run faster. At what time, at what point in time does it run faster? > > For example, if the test took one hour to perform.. > > and the result was the clock ran faster by one second within that hour, and there are 60 minutes in an hour.. > > 'when' did the clock run faster, which minute of the 60 minutes? > > Did it run faster the first second of the hour and then stopped? > > Did it run faster a half an hour later for one second? > > If the test took two weeks to perform, which day of the week did it run faster? You make no sense. Are you trying to visualize the experiment as some kind of graph? The experiment was done in real life. Why don't you visualize it that way? Their paper seems to say they started the experiment on September 25, 1971, and the experiment lasted approximately 636 hours (which is 26.5 days). 140 hours (5.8 days) were spent traveling eastward, and another 140 hours were spent traveling westward. They say "we recorded more than 5,000 time differences" during the period of the experiment. Of course, some of the time must have been spent sleeping. Some was probably spent in ground vehicles going from place to place. Their clocks were ticking at a different rate than the Naval Observatory clock whenever they were moving at a different rate than the Naval Observatory clock. AND whenever they were at a different altitude than the Naval Observatory clock. This question: "'when' did the clock run faster, which minute of the 60 minutes?" indicates you have no idea how the experiment worked. The data collected was for the entire trip. The difference in time would apply only to when they were moving. So, if they were only moving 20% of the time, the total difference in the elapsed time was accumulated only during that 20%. But the clocks never "stopped." Are you suggesting that they were incompetents who didn't know what they were doing? You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what they did. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 12:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cae5c8c7-4de9-4af7-804b-76477f101993@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451025 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:48:59 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > When does the clock run slower or faster? > > > The operative word is "When". > > > > when > (h)wen/ > adverb > adverb: when > > 1. > at what time. > > > > > In other words, if a clock runs lower or faster...then it must beging to run slower or faster.. > > > at a certain time. > > > At what time? > > > When? > > > When does the clock run > > slower > > or faster? > > > When? > > > At what time? There is time for time. Rate for time can be slower or faster for the same time order. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 21:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <WmElC.6691$Zg.2337@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #451005 |
Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake:
> A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was:
>
> Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates.
>
> How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time":
>
> --- start quote ---
>
> When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that!
>
> --- end quote ---
>
> So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time."
Or simpler: "proper time" is what is measured with a clock.
"Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured
with a clock.
SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus:
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of
the radiation corresponding to the transition between
the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the cesium 133 atom."
Note that according to this definition, the frequency
of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz.
Always!
If we have multiple "SI-clocks" at arbitrary positions
and states of motion, it doesn't make sense to claim that
the amount of "time" in a "second" differ between the clocks.
That would imply that the frequency of the Cs atom would
have to be different in the three clocks.
The clocks run by definition always at the same proper rate.
> And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories.
Right. Hafele and Keating's paper:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
But let us consider an idealized version of the experiment:
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
Here we have three clocks which are colocated
and start their journey at the same event "START":
Clock A stays at the ground.
Clock B travels westwards around the Earth.
Clock C travels eastwards around the Earth.
All three clocks are again colocated at the event "END".
The three clocks have measured the following proper times
between the event "START" and "END":
Clock A: 172320 seconds
Clock B: 172320 seconds + 325 ns
Clock C: 172320 seconds - 90 ns
So how can the measured time between the same two events
be different for the three clocks?
It is because the proper time measured by a clock is
a measurement of the "length" of the path travelled by
the clock through spacetime.
The proper times are different because the "length"
of their paths are different.
Think about it:
We have three identical clocks at different states of
motion and at different locations (during the journey).
Which clock is running at the correct rate, and which
clock is running faster that normal, and which clock
is running slower than normal?
How can the Cs atoms in the clocks that are running fast
or slow know how to change their frequency because
it at a different location and state of motion compared
to some other clock?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-28 13:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1086709d-09eb-400f-955a-a1943a4ca28b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451043 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:34:01 PM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 28.02.2018 17.32, skrev Ed Lake: > > A couple weeks ago, I tried to get Tom Roberts to explain why he believes the Hafele-Keating experiments do not show that clocks tick at different rates in different reference frames. His entire explanation was: > > > > Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. > > > > How is comparing "elapsed proper times" different from comparing "clock rates"? There's no point in asking Tom Roberts, since he seems unable to explain anything. Here is what the text book "Spacetime Physics: an Introduction to Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler says on page 10 about "proper time": > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > When two events both occur at the position of a certain clock, that special clock measures directly the interval between these two events. The interval is called the proper time (or sometimes the local time). The special clock that records the proper time directly has the name proper clock for this pair of events. In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time and the proper clock the wristwatch to emphasize that the proper clock is carried so that it is "present" at each of the two events as the events occur. In Einstein's German, the word for proper time is Eigenzeit, or "own-time," implying "one's very own time." The German word provides a more accurate description than the English. In English, the word "proper" has come to mean "following conventional rules." Proper time certainly does not do that! > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > So, "proper time" just means "an observer's local time." > > Or simpler: "proper time" is what is measured with a clock. No, it really should be what is measured using a clock by an observer NEXT TO the clock. Taylor and Wheeler even use "wristwatch time" as a synonym, since it implies that the observer is WEARING the clock. > > "Time", as used in physics, is per definition what is measured > with a clock. > SI-has defined the time unit "second" thus: > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > the cesium 133 atom." > > Note that according to this definition, the frequency > of the Cs hyperfine transition photon is 9 192 631 770 Hz. > Always! NO! It does not say that nor imply that. The frequency changes when you move the clock, that is why the RATE changes. The definition says that if you want to know how long a second is IN YOUR LOCATION, then COUNT 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation. > > If we have multiple "SI-clocks" at arbitrary positions > and states of motion, it doesn't make sense to claim that > the amount of "time" in a "second" differ between the clocks. > That would imply that the frequency of the Cs atom would > have to be different in the three clocks. YES! The frequency CAN BE different for all three clocks. That is what Time Dilation is all about. Frequencies change, indicating that the clock is ticking at a different RATE than previously. But COUNTING x-number of ticks of the frequency still equals 1 second. > > The clocks run by definition always at the same proper rate. > > > And what Hafele and Keating did was compare the local time they observed to the local time observed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. First they made certain that their 4 atomic clocks ticked at the same rate as an atomic clock at the Naval Observatory, then they flew the 4 atomic clocks around the world on commercial airliners, and then they again compare the 4 clocks to the local time observed at the Naval Observatory's relatively stationary atomic clock. Then they performed the experiment a second time, flying in the opposite direction. The experiments confirmed that the clocks that were moved showed a different amount of time had passed than the stationary clock showed, confirming Einstein's theories. > > Right. Hafele and Keating's paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > > But let us consider an idealized version of the experiment: > https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > > Here we have three clocks which are colocated > and start their journey at the same event "START": > Clock A stays at the ground. > Clock B travels westwards around the Earth. > Clock C travels eastwards around the Earth. > All three clocks are again colocated at the event "END". > > The three clocks have measured the following proper times > between the event "START" and "END": > Clock A: 172320 seconds > Clock B: 172320 seconds + 325 ns > Clock C: 172320 seconds - 90 ns > > So how can the measured time between the same two events > be different for the three clocks? > It is because the proper time measured by a clock is > a measurement of the "length" of the path travelled by > the clock through spacetime. > The proper times are different because the "length" > of their paths are different. No. That is an irrelevant MATHEMATICAL MODEL example. They wrote a paper about the mathematical model they used. Their mathematical model had NOTHING to do with spacetime. > > Think about it: > We have three identical clocks at different states of > motion and at different locations (during the journey). > Which clock is running at the correct rate, and which > clock is running faster that normal, and which clock > is running slower than normal? > > How can the Cs atoms in the clocks that are running fast > or slow know how to change their frequency because > it at a different location and state of motion compared > to some other clock? The clocks "know how" to change their frequency because there is a NATURAL LIMIT to how fast they they can tick. There is an upper limit to their frequency. That upper limit is the speed of light. The clocks are already ticking at nearly the speed of light when they are stationary. So, when you put the clock in motion, the lateral velocity cannot be added to the vibration velocity. It's Einstein's Second Postulate: the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the EMITTER. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web