Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #452011 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-08 14:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-23 21:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 361 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-08 14:18 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:40 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:04 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 07:20 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:48 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 10:50 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-10 10:29 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 01:45 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 15:13 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 12:34 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-08 14:50 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:27 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:13 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 08:16 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 08:29 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 08:56 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 09:06 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:38 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 01:44 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:23 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 08:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 09:04 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 10:06 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 13:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:37 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:11 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 22:14 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:28 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:17 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 13:10 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 13:27 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:21 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 11:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-11 19:12 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-12 02:27 +0100
If you, really understood relativity you would understand that you do NOT understand relativity. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 10:25 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:16 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 19:51 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:28 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 22:11 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 15:03 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 23:19 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 22:20 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-09 18:13 -0500
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 23:23 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 22:24 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:58 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:34 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:38 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:02 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 04:20 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:25 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:33 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 10:01 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 13:30 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 19:42 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:44 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 10:18 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-11 01:04 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:31 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-11 21:41 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:16 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-11 18:40 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 20:16 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 21:34 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:25 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 23:09 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 23:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:38 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ernie Shackelford <iugtar@ttrwrta.oc> - 2018-03-09 10:35 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 08:43 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:05 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:31 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 12:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-11 17:59 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:46 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-11 08:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:56 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:45 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 07:53 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-09 16:58 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-09 08:24 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:13 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-11 09:41 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 09:55 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 10:26 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:00 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-09 23:28 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:38 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:16 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-10 08:58 +1100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-09 14:52 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 14:57 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 15:06 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-09 15:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:00 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 06:20 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-09 22:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 10:36 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 06:47 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 09:11 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 10:08 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 10:14 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 10:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 11:28 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-10 11:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 11:53 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Elmer Shore <emt@rlerpnca.oc> - 2018-03-10 21:24 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Elmer Shore <emt@rlerpnca.oc> - 2018-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 10:37 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 11:22 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 11:51 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 13:08 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-10 16:36 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-10 21:19 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-11 13:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 14:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:44 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 05:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-11 19:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 16:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 17:53 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-13 11:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-10 13:30 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 13:41 -0800
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 12:09 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 13:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:36 -0700
Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-10 14:00 -0800
Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-11 12:25 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-11 14:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-11 14:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 07:36 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 09:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-12 20:04 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 09:39 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 21:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 22:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:17 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-12 12:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 14:11 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 21:16 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-12 22:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 13:23 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 14:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 16:56 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 16:40 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-12 14:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 14:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 14:53 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 15:04 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 13:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-13 14:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-13 16:55 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 21:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 23:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:44 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-14 09:40 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 10:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:07 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-14 21:15 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 14:46 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 08:42 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:48 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 10:09 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 18:12 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 22:04 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 22:51 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-15 18:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-15 18:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 10:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 21:55 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 14:06 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:17 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-16 10:42 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 22:16 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-15 05:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:52 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 10:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-18 01:10 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 10:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-15 18:07 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 14:23 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:36 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 10:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 10:15 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-14 11:01 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 14:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 09:59 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 14:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 15:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-16 07:57 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-16 08:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 08:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 12:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 01:15 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-17 01:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 12:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 13:00 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 22:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-18 07:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-18 11:49 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 22:39 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 06:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 06:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 20:52 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-19 22:11 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 00:06 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-20 08:57 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 10:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-20 19:10 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-20 11:45 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-03-21 05:30 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 15:25 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 05:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-21 12:56 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 07:48 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 08:42 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-21 08:58 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 09:55 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 10:03 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 12:08 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 13:35 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-21 22:37 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 22:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 20:57 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:53 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:46 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:30 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 13:44 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:25 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-14 14:52 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 15:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 15:23 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-14 23:10 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:50 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-15 11:11 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 06:28 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:45 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:06 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 08:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 16:47 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:11 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:43 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 20:03 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 08:53 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 10:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 13:23 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-15 21:50 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:09 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 14:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:35 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:45 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 14:13 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 13:21 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-15 16:23 -0400
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 13:38 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-15 22:15 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:16 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:22 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 00:22 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-16 00:58 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-14 23:18 -0500
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 22:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 01:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 08:06 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 08:27 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 08:51 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-15 09:19 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-17 10:08 -0500
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-17 08:20 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:07 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 11:19 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 11:54 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 19:09 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 14:34 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 15:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-18 17:19 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:08 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 22:36 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 10:12 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 19:22 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 20:39 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:28 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 19:54 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:29 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-18 21:18 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-18 21:12 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:24 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-19 19:29 +0100
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 19:53 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 13:18 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-18 13:42 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 11:20 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 19:41 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-19 13:47 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-03-17 13:49 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 14:26 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:46 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 18:07 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 20:44 -0700
Those LYING scientists "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:35 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 16:38 +0000
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-19 12:32 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 14:02 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 17:10 -0700
Re: Those LYING scientists Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 21:16 +0000
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95ba2789-c4c0-41c7-8a70-0087332e1404@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452320 |
On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 11:41:13 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: <snip> > > > Ed, Relativists know that all the processes in the universe operate on absolute time and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same everywhere. > > > > Wrong. Relativists know that the laws of physics APPEAR to be the same in all inertial frames of reference. HOWEVER, they also know that time can move at different rates in different frames of reference, and the only way to detect that is to COMPARE one frame to another. "Absolute time" is what they both compare against. > > Yes clocks accumulate clock seconds at different rates in different frames. But relativists argue that their definition of a clock second 1,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 atoms is the same in all frames of reference. Therefore they insist that clock ticks at the same rate in different frames. ONLY if they consider the tick COUNT to be the same as the tick RATE. And relativists do NOT consider them to be the same. By DEFINITION, one clock second is 1,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 atom EVERYWHERE. That is the COUNT of cycles per second. When you reach that COUNT, you have one second. Everywhere. Period. However, INTERVAL RATES BETWEEN TICKS will vary between reference frames. So, even if COUNTING 1,192,631,770 cycles equals one second everywhere, ONE SECOND can be longer or shorter in one frame versus another because the INTERVAL RATE BETWEEN TICKS is different. > > > > > > The GPS confirms this belief: the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. This make the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. However they can’t admit this fact because their cherished postulates of SR which say that time is relative. > > > > Not so. The BUILD the GPS clocks on the ground so that they tick at a SLOWER rate while ON the ground. That way, when the GPS clock is in orbit where time ticks FASTER, the GPS clock will tick at the same rate as ground clocks. > > Sigh...that’s what I said: the GPS clock second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second (making it to run slower) while on the ground but at the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of aground clock second. This is designed to make the GPS in synch with the ground clock interns of absolute time. The GPS clock second is not "redefined." It is ADJUSTED so that it will be in synch with ground clocks in orbit. "Absolute time" is not a factor, since no one has any way to measure "absolute time." > > > > > > > > You pointed out and with experimental support that the rate of passage of clock time is indeed different in different inertial frames. Their argument is that the rate of passage of proper time (absolute time) is the same in all frames (that is: 1 second/second) and that the different clock seconds accumulated by different clocks in relative motion is due to time dilation--in other word time itself is slowed by relative motion. > > > > WRONG in many ways. "Proper time" and "absolute time" are not the same. "Proper time" is your LOCAL rate of time. "Absolute time" is the theoretical time of a STATIONARY point in the universe that is NOT affected by gravity. > > > > > Unfortunately, their argument is based on the faulty assumption that a clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame--it does not. > > > > Right. It does not. But Relativists know this. So, why do you BELIEVE they do not know this and make faulty assumptions? I've said no such thing about "Relativists." I've said it about MATHEMATICIANS and Quantum Theorists. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 09:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f26765e2-0fe6-46ba-ad84-51c9a9730ef2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452011 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:18:04 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: It appears that I should have used the NIST and Italian experiment to start this thread, not the articles about Scott Kelly. Why hasn't anyone yet responded to the questions below? How can people on this forum not understand that when scientists lift a clock 1 foot and CLAIM they can measure a FASTER tick rate for the higher clock, they are NOT LYING? Nor are they "vulgarizing" anything. The PURPOSE of the experiment was to demonstrate that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes. If that is not the PURPOSE of the experiment, what WAS the PURPOSE? The experiment: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Likewise, when 24 scientists haul an atomic clock to the top of a mountain and CLAIM that it ticks FASTER than an identical clock 1000 meters lower down, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT if it was not to DEMONSTRATE that clocks at higher altitudes tick FASTER than clocks at lower altitudes? - hide quoted text - The experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html Won't someone here explain the PURPOSE of such experiments if it wasn't to demonstrate that clocks tick at different RATES at different altitudes? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5673ed28-1388-40f4-88e9-feb4b9fcab56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452111 |
El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 14:55:40 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:18:04 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > It appears that I should have used the NIST and Italian experiment to start this thread, not the articles about Scott Kelly. > It does not matter what experiments about SR/GR you refer to. All of them just agree with the mathematical predictions of the SR/GR models. All you are discussing in this group are your distorded personal OPINIONS on a subject you have not studied and, worse, which you have severe reading problems of even non-scientific magazines. > Why hasn't anyone yet responded to the questions below? > > How can people on this forum not understand that when scientists lift a clock 1 foot and CLAIM they can measure a FASTER tick rate for the higher clock, they are NOT LYING? Nor are they "vulgarizing" anything. The PURPOSE of the experiment was to demonstrate that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes. If that is not the PURPOSE of the experiment, what WAS the PURPOSE? > Wrong, the purpose of the experiment was to confirm the validity of Einstein's theories and, for sure, they did precisely that. No physicist is disagreeing that proper clocks tick always at the same rate (ticks/second) independently of their speed and/or gravity. No physicist is disagreeing that the accumulated reading of a given clock (that is the total count of seconds over a period of time) depends on the path the clock follows through spacetime. > The experiment: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > The scientific results of that experiment are published in the Science journal (one of the most respected scientific journals), which is available at: https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Chou-Hume-Rosenband-Wineland-Science2010.pdf The researchers clearly know the difference between clock ticking rate and the accumulated reading of atomic clocks and they disagree with your OPINION. > Likewise, when 24 scientists haul an atomic clock to the top of a mountain and CLAIM that it ticks FASTER than an identical clock 1000 meters lower down, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT if it was not to DEMONSTRATE that clocks at higher altitudes tick FASTER than clocks at lower altitudes? > - hide quoted text - > > The experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > Same as above, those researchers fully agree with Einstein's theories and with the fact that clock rates are different from accumulated clock readings. > Won't someone here explain the PURPOSE of such experiments if it wasn't to demonstrate that clocks tick at different RATES at different altitudes? > > Ed Both experiments were performed with the objective of validate the predictions of General Relativity, and they did exactly that. Nowhere, in both scientific papers, the purpose of demonstrate that "clock tick at different rates at different altitudes" is the main objective of the research.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49beeff8-5c27-4b66-b592-c52ad6bc7fe6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452115 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:26:25 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 14:55:40 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:18:04 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > It appears that I should have used the NIST and Italian experiment to start this thread, not the articles about Scott Kelly. > > > > It does not matter what experiments about SR/GR you refer to. All of them just > agree with the mathematical predictions of the SR/GR models. > > All you are discussing in this group are your distorded personal OPINIONS on a > subject you have not studied and, worse, which you have severe reading problems > of even non-scientific magazines. All you are doing is avoiding discussing the subject. Instead, you just want to argue about word definitions. > > > Why hasn't anyone yet responded to the questions below? > > > > How can people on this forum not understand that when scientists lift a clock 1 foot and CLAIM they can measure a FASTER tick rate for the higher clock, they are NOT LYING? Nor are they "vulgarizing" anything. The PURPOSE of the experiment was to demonstrate that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes. If that is not the PURPOSE of the experiment, what WAS the PURPOSE? > > > > Wrong, the purpose of the experiment was to confirm the validity of Einstein's > theories and, for sure, they did precisely that. Of course. But WHAT DID THEY DO to confirm the validity of Einstein's theories? > > No physicist is disagreeing that proper clocks tick always at the same rate (ticks/second) independently of their speed and/or gravity. That doesn't even make sense. So how could no physicist disagree with it? Do you mean "No physicist is disagreeing that proper clocks always tick at the same rate IN THEIR OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE?" > > No physicist is disagreeing that the accumulated reading of a given clock > (that is the total count of seconds over a period of time) depends on the path > the clock follows through spacetime. But that's not the question. The question is: Does a clock atop a mountain accumulate time faster than a clock at the bottom of a mountain? > > > The experiment: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > The scientific results of that experiment are published in the Science journal > (one of the most respected scientific journals), which is available at: > > https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Chou-Hume-Rosenband-Wineland-Science2010.pdf > > The researchers clearly know the difference between clock ticking rate and > the accumulated reading of atomic clocks and they disagree with your OPINION. Why do you just make CLAIMS without providing evidence of your claims? Here is a quote from that article: "Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that CLOCKS RUN MORE SLOWLY near massive objects." Another quote from the article: "Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates." Translation: "Disparate clock rates" means "DIFFERENT clock rates." > > > Likewise, when 24 scientists haul an atomic clock to the top of a mountain and CLAIM that it ticks FASTER than an identical clock 1000 meters lower down, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT if it was not to DEMONSTRATE that clocks at higher altitudes tick FASTER than clocks at lower altitudes? > > - hide quoted text - > > > > The experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > > > Same as above, those researchers fully agree with Einstein's theories and with > the fact that clock rates are different from accumulated clock readings. But they were comparing the TICK RATE of a clock atop a mountain to the TICK RATE of a clock 1000 meters lower. They did so by comparing the ACCUMULATED CLOCK READINGS over 14 hours or so. You cannot LOOK at ticks from two atomic clocks and SEE that one is ticking 1 nanosecond faster per second than the other. You have to accumulate ticks for a long period of time for both clocks and then make the comparison with accumulated ticks. The comparison showed that the higher clock ticked faster. And their paper says they can use that kind of test to measure the altitude of locations. > > > Won't someone here explain the PURPOSE of such experiments if it wasn't to demonstrate that clocks tick at different RATES at different altitudes? > > > > Ed > > Both experiments were performed with the objective of validate the predictions > of General Relativity, and they did exactly that. Yes, but HOW did they "validate the predictions"? If you do not understand HOW the did it, you do not understand the experiment. > > Nowhere, in both scientific papers, the purpose of demonstrate that "clock tick > at different rates at different altitudes" is the main objective of the research. The purpose of the NIST paper was to show that they could measure the difference in tick rates where one clock was just one foot higher than another clock. The purpose of the Italian paper was to show that they could measure the difference in altitude by measuring the difference in TICK RATES with sufficient precision to make it a tool for measuring altitude differences. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 23:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5AA3891B.698D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #452111 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:18:04 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > It appears that I should have used the NIST and Italian experiment to start this thread, not the articles about Scott Kelly. > > Why hasn't anyone yet responded to the questions below? > > How can people on this forum not understand that when scientists lift a clock 1 foot and CLAIM they can measure a FASTER tick rate for the higher clock, they are NOT LYING? Nor are they "vulgarizing" anything. The PURPOSE of the experiment was to demonstrate that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes. If that is not the PURPOSE of the experiment, what WAS the PURPOSE? > > The experiment: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > Likewise, when 24 scientists haul an atomic clock to the top of a mountain and CLAIM that it ticks FASTER than an identical clock 1000 meters lower down, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT if it was not to DEMONSTRATE that clocks at higher altitudes tick FASTER than clocks at lower altitudes? > - hide quoted text - > > The experiment: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > Won't someone here explain the PURPOSE of such experiments if it wasn't to demonstrate that clocks tick at different RATES at different altitudes? > > Ed according to your link: The experiment: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Is an illustration of the experiment... https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/styles/480_x_480_limit/public/images/2017/04/06/relativity-small.jpg?itok=ZdqX5wdQ Were they both doing the experiment for 79-years??? "Described in the Sept. 24 issue of Science,* the difference is much too small for humans to perceive directly—adding up to approximately 90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime..." 90 billionths of a second over a 79-year period is little too long to be standing on some steps holding up a clock. The question needs to be ask, Have they ever performend the experiment and saw no change? "too small for humans to perceive directly" What does that mean? Only ants can perceive it????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9100fcc9-723a-4d12-9aec-cb1bca6e1860@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452011 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:18:04 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually believe. > > So, let's discuss some examples involving astronaut Scott Kelly. > > Here's a news story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-scott-kelly_us_56d7342be4b0871f60ed8d0a > > Here's what it says: > > "So, one year in orbit is equivalent to 0.9999999997 years on Earth. Put another way: While the rest of us experienced a year on Earth, Kelly experienced just a tiny bit less than one full Earth year. Specifically, his year was shorter than ours by 0.0000000003 years, or roughly 0.01 seconds." > > In other words, time was running faster for Kelly while he was aboard the ISS. Time was ticking at a different rate than here on earth. > > The article also says > > "Bennett noted that a more precise calculation shows that Kelly aged less than us by 0.00946 seconds per year — and since he was in space for 340 days rather than 365, he really aged less than us by 0.0088 seconds during that period." > > Here's another news story: https://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html > > The title is "Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Spread Age Gap for Astronaut Scott Kelly & His Twin." It says, > > "Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity holds that time moves more slowly for objects in motion compared to a stationary observer, and experiments have borne out this prediction. This "time dilation" is most dramatic and noticeable at relativistic speeds, but the effects manifest even at the much lower velocities experienced by bodies in Earth orbit." > > Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion." > > So, were the authors LYING because they actually believe that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Is there a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to make the public think that "time moves more slowly for objects in motion"? > > It must be some kind of conspiracy, since here's another author and another article: https://www.sciencealert.com/in-space-scott-kelly-aged-more-slowly-than-his-brother-on-earth-and-here-s-why > > --- start quote --- > > What Einstein's theory suggests - and what evidence has since backed up - is that time moves more slowly for objects in motion than it does for a stationary observer. It also moves more slowly the closer you are to a gravitational mass like Earth. > > In other words, we're not all experiencing time at the same rate. > > The faster you move and accelerate, the more time slows down, and because Scott Kelly has been zooming up to and down from space, and orbiting the planet at around 28,200 km/h (17,500 mph), his brother Mark has lived through five extra milliseconds. > > --- end quote --- > > Another article: https://interestingengineering.com/astronaut-scott-kelly-aged-slower-than-his-twin-while-in-space > > The title: Astronaut Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Twin While in Space > > --- start quote --- > > When Astronaut Scott Kelly was in space, he actually aged less than his twin brother did here on Earth. His older twin brother (by 6 seconds) stayed on earth, and he actually became a little more older than brother Scott due to relativity. As Einstein would suggest, time moves slower for objects in motion as compared to those at rest. As Scott orbited around Earth, his brother Mark was experiencing time at a slightly faster pace. So, if you can wrap your mind around it, not everyone experiences time at the same rate. > > Scott Kelly was orbiting Earth in the ISS at around 17,500 mph, and his brother sat (relatively) still on Earth, according to Science Alert. This accounted for older twin mark to live for 5 extra milliseconds when compared to Scott. When the two were born in 1964, they were born 6 seconds apart. Now, the two are 6 seconds and 5 milliseconds apart. > > --- end quote --- > > Another article about different astronauts, and THE ARTICLE IS FROM NASA: > > https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp7/luletters/lu_letter13.html > > --- start quote --- > > After our 6 months in space, we will have actually aged slightly less than everyone else on the ground because of an effect called time dilation. It isn't by much (about 0.007 seconds), but it is one side benefit of flying in space! For a little change of pace, I decided to write this letter for the physicists and engineers out there. The beginning part is more general, but if you haven't studied university level physics some of the details may be a bit obscure. Hopefully though you'll still find this interesting, and who knows, maybe it will inspire you to learn more about relativity! > > As Einstein first figured out, the concepts of length, energy, mass, and time all depend on how fast you are moving. > > --- end quote --- > > How many people do you believe are involved in this conspiracy to lie to the public? Dozens? Hundreds? THOUSANDS? Why hasn't anyone broken ranks and told the public that it is all lies and that time really ticks at the same rate everywhere? Are they all sworn under penalty of death to support the lies? > > Or could it be that they are all saying what they understand and believe to be true, and it is just the people on this forum who CLAIM they are all "vulgarizing" and "dumbing down" and LYING, because the people on this forum believe that time really ticks at the same rate everywhere, and they believe the public is just too dumb to understand that. > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > Ed This question is a lot to do about nothing. A]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick at their normal rate. B]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick faster. How can both answers be correct? Both answers are correct but a little star trek magic was added by not completing the answer. Hey we all love a good camp fire story. I will complete the answer thus removing the mystery. A]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick at there normal rate when observed in the clock's FoR. B]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick faster when observing from the earth's FoR. That is boring a fish wrapped in news paper as one can understand the answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c520ce71-9fba-4e69-83de-261257743b4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452136 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:39:01 PM UTC-6, John Heath wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:18:04 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually believe. > > > > So, let's discuss some examples involving astronaut Scott Kelly. > > > > Here's a news story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-scott-kelly_us_56d7342be4b0871f60ed8d0a > > > > Here's what it says: > > > > "So, one year in orbit is equivalent to 0.9999999997 years on Earth. Put another way: While the rest of us experienced a year on Earth, Kelly experienced just a tiny bit less than one full Earth year. Specifically, his year was shorter than ours by 0.0000000003 years, or roughly 0.01 seconds." > > > > In other words, time was running faster for Kelly while he was aboard the ISS. Time was ticking at a different rate than here on earth. > > > > The article also says > > > > "Bennett noted that a more precise calculation shows that Kelly aged less than us by 0.00946 seconds per year — and since he was in space for 340 days rather than 365, he really aged less than us by 0.0088 seconds during that period." > > > > Here's another news story: https://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html > > > > The title is "Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Spread Age Gap for Astronaut Scott Kelly & His Twin." It says, > > > > "Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity holds that time moves more slowly for objects in motion compared to a stationary observer, and experiments have borne out this prediction. This "time dilation" is most dramatic and noticeable at relativistic speeds, but the effects manifest even at the much lower velocities experienced by bodies in Earth orbit." > > > > Note the phrase "time moves more slowly for objects in motion." > > > > So, were the authors LYING because they actually believe that "time moves at the same rate everywhere"? Is there a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to make the public think that "time moves more slowly for objects in motion"? > > > > It must be some kind of conspiracy, since here's another author and another article: https://www.sciencealert.com/in-space-scott-kelly-aged-more-slowly-than-his-brother-on-earth-and-here-s-why > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > What Einstein's theory suggests - and what evidence has since backed up - is that time moves more slowly for objects in motion than it does for a stationary observer. It also moves more slowly the closer you are to a gravitational mass like Earth. > > > > In other words, we're not all experiencing time at the same rate. > > > > The faster you move and accelerate, the more time slows down, and because Scott Kelly has been zooming up to and down from space, and orbiting the planet at around 28,200 km/h (17,500 mph), his brother Mark has lived through five extra milliseconds. > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > Another article: https://interestingengineering.com/astronaut-scott-kelly-aged-slower-than-his-twin-while-in-space > > > > The title: Astronaut Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Twin While in Space > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > When Astronaut Scott Kelly was in space, he actually aged less than his twin brother did here on Earth. His older twin brother (by 6 seconds) stayed on earth, and he actually became a little more older than brother Scott due to relativity. As Einstein would suggest, time moves slower for objects in motion as compared to those at rest. As Scott orbited around Earth, his brother Mark was experiencing time at a slightly faster pace. So, if you can wrap your mind around it, not everyone experiences time at the same rate. > > > > Scott Kelly was orbiting Earth in the ISS at around 17,500 mph, and his brother sat (relatively) still on Earth, according to Science Alert. This accounted for older twin mark to live for 5 extra milliseconds when compared to Scott. When the two were born in 1964, they were born 6 seconds apart. Now, the two are 6 seconds and 5 milliseconds apart. > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > Another article about different astronauts, and THE ARTICLE IS FROM NASA: > > > > https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp7/luletters/lu_letter13.html > > > > --- start quote --- > > > > After our 6 months in space, we will have actually aged slightly less than everyone else on the ground because of an effect called time dilation. It isn't by much (about 0.007 seconds), but it is one side benefit of flying in space! For a little change of pace, I decided to write this letter for the physicists and engineers out there. The beginning part is more general, but if you haven't studied university level physics some of the details may be a bit obscure. Hopefully though you'll still find this interesting, and who knows, maybe it will inspire you to learn more about relativity! > > > > As Einstein first figured out, the concepts of length, energy, mass, and time all depend on how fast you are moving. > > > > --- end quote --- > > > > How many people do you believe are involved in this conspiracy to lie to the public? Dozens? Hundreds? THOUSANDS? Why hasn't anyone broken ranks and told the public that it is all lies and that time really ticks at the same rate everywhere? Are they all sworn under penalty of death to support the lies? > > > > Or could it be that they are all saying what they understand and believe to be true, and it is just the people on this forum who CLAIM they are all "vulgarizing" and "dumbing down" and LYING, because the people on this forum believe that time really ticks at the same rate everywhere, and they believe the public is just too dumb to understand that. > > > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > > > Ed > This question is a lot to do about nothing. > > A]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick at their normal rate. > > B]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick faster. > > How can both answers be correct? Both answers are correct but a little star trek magic was added by not completing the answer. Hey we all love a good camp fire story. > > I will complete the answer thus removing the mystery. > > A]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick at there normal rate when observed in the clock's FoR. > > B]Yes clocks on a GPS satellite tick faster when observing from the earth's FoR. > > That is boring a fish wrapped in news paper as one can understand the answer. It's only boring if you understand Relativity (as you seem to) and DO NOT WANT TO ARGUE with people on this forum who do NOT understand Relativity. I want to understand WHY they cannot understand Relativity the same way you and I do, and the only way to do that is to discuss the subject with them. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 08:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fggebbF4frsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452011 |
On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > believe. > Now you're just trolling, and not very well, at that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 14:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3bc85d2-b465-4da5-bc19-0baf74e5f682@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452140 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > > believe. > > > > Now you're just trolling, and not very well, at that. > > Sylvia. The Italian experiment describes how they measured the tick rate of a clock atop a mountain and compared it to the tick rate of a clock located 1000 meters lower. The Nature Physics article says, "Here, we report the first field measurement campaign with a transportable Sr optical lattice clock. We use it to determine the gravity potential difference between the middle of a mountain and a location 90 km away, exploiting both local and remote clock comparisons to eliminate potential clock errors." In vulgarized terms: They used clocks to determine the difference in altitude between two locations. They did the measurements from both locations to verify the results. The Nature Physics article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-017-0042-3 The LA Times article says, "By comparing the TICK RATE of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers were able to show that the altitude difference between the two locations was roughly 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet." So, the clocks ticked at different rates at different altitudes. And they could measure the altitude by comparing the tick rates. The LA Time article: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html However, people in this forum claim that clocks tick at the SAME RATE everywhere. So, the experiment must be impossible. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 14:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc076812-845e-4774-9064-7ef37b3790f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452155 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:52:34 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > > > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > > > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > > > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > > > believe. > > > > > > > Now you're just trolling, and not very well, at that. > > > > Sylvia. > > The Italian experiment describes how they measured the tick rate of a clock atop a mountain and compared it to the tick rate of a clock located 1000 meters lower. > > The Nature Physics article says, > > "Here, we report the first field measurement campaign with a transportable Sr optical lattice clock. We use it to determine the gravity potential difference between the middle of a mountain and a location 90 km away, exploiting both local and remote clock comparisons to eliminate potential clock errors." > > In vulgarized terms: They used clocks to determine the difference in altitude between two locations. They did the measurements from both locations to verify the results. > > The Nature Physics article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-017-0042-3 > > The LA Times article says, > > "By comparing the TICK RATE of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers were able to show that the altitude difference between the two locations was roughly 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet." > > So, the clocks ticked at different rates at different altitudes. And they could measure the altitude by comparing the tick rates. > > The LA Time article: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > However, people in this forum claim that clocks tick at the SAME RATE everywhere. So, the experiment must be impossible. > > Ed These are metaphors. As I said earlier, metaphors are used universally in research papers and textbooks. The reader is presumed to have reached the stage at which detailed explanations of metaphors are unnecessary (they would make the stuff very hard to read and obfuscated/pedantic). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 15:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89534e74-e0e4-478c-a912-819b208cdf5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452156 |
On Friday, 9 March 2018 23:57:53 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:52:34 PM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > > > > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > > > > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > > > > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > > > > believe. > > > > > > > > > > Now you're just trolling, and not very well, at that. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > The Italian experiment describes how they measured the tick rate of a clock atop a mountain and compared it to the tick rate of a clock located 1000 meters lower. > > > > The Nature Physics article says, > > > > "Here, we report the first field measurement campaign with a transportable Sr optical lattice clock. We use it to determine the gravity potential difference between the middle of a mountain and a location 90 km away, exploiting both local and remote clock comparisons to eliminate potential clock errors." > > > > In vulgarized terms: They used clocks to determine the difference in altitude between two locations. They did the measurements from both locations to verify the results. > > > > The Nature Physics article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-017-0042-3 > > > > The LA Times article says, > > > > "By comparing the TICK RATE of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers were able to show that the altitude difference between the two locations was roughly 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet." > > > > So, the clocks ticked at different rates at different altitudes. And they could measure the altitude by comparing the tick rates. > > > > The LA Time article: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-atomic-clock-gravity-20180212-story.html > > > > However, people in this forum claim that clocks tick at the SAME RATE everywhere. So, the experiment must be impossible. > > > > Ed > > These are metaphors. A really poor excuse for a mumbling idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 15:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10fb9549-c76d-46cb-8551-b55eba088f97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452155 |
El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 19:52:34 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > > > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > > > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > > > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > > > believe. But the problem, Edward, it completely yours, since you do not understand even basic physics. Again, physicist know very well that an Caesium atomic clock will tick at precisely 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is located at ground and it will tick precisely at 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is orbiting the Earth at an altitude of 20200 (km). Physicist alse are quite aware that a Caesium atomic clock, ORBITING at 20200 (km) will be measured FROM THE GROUND to run faster (to accumulate seconds at a faster pace) 38,5 microseconds per day. That is the reason the GPS system adjusts the Caesium atomic clock, before launch, so that it generates a 10.22999999543 (MHz) reference signal. This reference signal, does not change when the GPS satellite is orbiting at 20200 (km), which is a proof the ticking rate is not affected by gravity or speed. The radio signals emitted by the satellite arrive to the ground at a reference frequency of 10.23 (MHz), proving that the path through spacetime is what generates the difference (the signal of frequency 10.22999999543 (MHz) at 20200 (km) is received on the ground at a frequency of 10.23 (MHz). You are completely unable to understand this, even if you have been provided with the references which state these FACTS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 16:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3539c195-c4df-4c62-8d2a-99f07999449c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452165 |
Ed Lake is Just a VANDALIZING LITTERBUG PUNK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 06:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ePKoC.197315$1r3.130178@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #452166 |
On 10/03/2018 00:00, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ed Lake is Just a VANDALIZING LITTERBUG PUNK.
>
I can't agree with that David.
( He DOES at least think
of at least one
GOOD TITLE
for a threads eh! :) )
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 22:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <85ce69d7-c8be-4b0f-ad42-441c64067253@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452165 |
On Saturday, 10 March 2018 00:41:24 UTC+1, Paparios wrote: > Again, physicist know very well that an Caesium atomic clock will tick at > precisely 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is located at ground and it will > tick precisely at 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is orbiting the Earth at > an altitude of 20200 (km). You know it and you're wrong, as anyone can check at GPS. You're just enchanting the reality, as expected from a fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 10:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oyOoC.194362$WW4.162412@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #452165 |
On 09/03/2018 23:41, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 19:52:34 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate >>>> everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is >>>> just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for >>>> stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say >>>> something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually >>>> believe. > > But the problem, Edward, it completely yours, since you do not understand even > basic physics. > > Again, physicist know very well that an Caesium atomic clock will tick at > precisely 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is located at ground and it will > tick precisely at 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is orbiting the Earth at > an altitude of 20200 (km). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Physicist alse are quite aware that a Caesium atomic clock, ORBITING at 20200 > (km) will be measured FROM THE GROUND to run faster (to accumulate seconds at a > faster pace) 38,5 microseconds per day. So it only APPEARS to run faster as measured FROM THE GROUND. And can we take it that physicists know very well that the twin traveling at .99c ONLY APPEARS TO AGE SLOWER than his stay at home sister ? Or perhaps physicists have ONE RULE FOR CLOCKS AND ANOTHER FOR TWINS eh! > That is the reason the GPS system adjusts the Caesium atomic clock, before > launch, so that it generates a 10.22999999543 (MHz) reference signal. This > reference signal, does not change when the GPS satellite is orbiting at 20200 > (km), which is a proof the ticking rate is not affected by gravity or speed. > The radio signals emitted by the satellite arrive to the ground at a reference > frequency of 10.23 (MHz), proving that the path through spacetime is what > generates the difference (the signal of frequency 10.22999999543 (MHz) at 20200 > (km) is received on the ground at a frequency of 10.23 (MHz). > > You are completely unable to understand this, even if you have been provided > with the references which state these FACTS. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 06:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d27dbd5-1fbb-4831-a5e8-bca7b92eb4c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452192 |
El sábado, 10 de marzo de 2018, 7:36:06 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > On 09/03/2018 23:41, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 19:52:34 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > >> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>> People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > >>>> everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > >>>> just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > >>>> stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > >>>> something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > >>>> believe. > > > > But the problem, Edward, it completely yours, since you do not understand even > > basic physics. > > > > Again, physicist know very well that an Caesium atomic clock will tick at > > precisely 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is located at ground and it will > > tick precisely at 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is orbiting the Earth at > > an altitude of 20200 (km). > > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > Physicist alse are quite aware that a Caesium atomic clock, ORBITING at 20200 > > (km) will be measured FROM THE GROUND to run faster (to accumulate seconds at a > > faster pace) 38,5 microseconds per day. > > So it only APPEARS to run faster as measured FROM THE GROUND. > > And can we take it that physicists know very well that the twin > traveling at .99c ONLY APPEARS TO AGE SLOWER than his stay at home sister ? > > Or perhaps physicists have ONE RULE FOR CLOCKS AND ANOTHER FOR TWINS eh! > Or, perhaps, you do not know what you are talking about!! Both SR and GR are about the geometry of spacetime. Time dilation and length contraction refer to orientation effects of time and length over the observer's location in spacetime. Like the guy with a ladder trying to enter with it through a door. While the ladder does not get any shorter or larger, the geometrical orientation of the ladder with respect to the door will bring some physical consequences (to be able to enter or not through the door). Similarly the geometry of spacetime generates similar consequences, such as the ones the traveling twin experiences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 09:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97f4ecdb-1924-48e0-a1e2-959e2ab8e310@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452165 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:41:24 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 19:52:34 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > > > > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > > > > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > > > > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > > > > believe. > > But the problem, Edward, it completely yours, since you do not understand even > basic physics. > > Again, physicist know very well that an Caesium atomic clock will tick at > precisely 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is located at ground and it will > tick precisely at 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is orbiting the Earth at > an altitude of 20200 (km). Agreed. A second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 ticks. So, a change in the INTERVALS between ticks cannot change the DEFINED second. > > Physicist alse are quite aware that a Caesium atomic clock, ORBITING at 20200 > (km) will be measured FROM THE GROUND to run faster (to accumulate seconds at a > faster pace) 38,5 microseconds per day. Agreed. > > That is the reason the GPS system adjusts the Caesium atomic clock, before > launch, so that it generates a 10.22999999543 (MHz) reference signal. This > reference signal, does not change when the GPS satellite is orbiting at 20200 > (km), which is a proof the ticking rate is not affected by gravity or speed. WRONG. Before launch they adjust the clock to run SLOWER (to TICK FEWER THAN 9,192,631,770 ticks per second) because they know that when it is in orbit it will run FASTER. By adjusting the clock to run SLOWER while on the ground, it will run AT THE SAME RATE as normal ground clocks when it is in orbit. > The radio signals emitted by the satellite arrive to the ground at a reference > frequency of 10.23 (MHz), proving that the path through spacetime is what > generates the difference (the signal of frequency 10.22999999543 (MHz) at 20200 > (km) is received on the ground at a frequency of 10.23 (MHz). > > You are completely unable to understand this, even if you have been provided > with the references which state these FACTS. A change in frequency due to the difference in speeds between the GPS satellite and the ground station has nothing to do with anything. As long as the difference remains constant, it has no effect on anything. HOWEVER, you do seem to be saying that the satellite transmits at one frequency and the signals are received at another frequency, CONFIRMING once again that the speed of light is added to an observer's velocity when the observer is moving toward the source of the light. The GPS satellite is moving in orbit in the same direction the earth is spinning. So, a ground station on earth would be moving toward the satellite. The satellite transmits its signal at c (regardless of it's own velocity, according to Einstein's Second Postulate) and the ground station receives it at c+v, where v is the ground station's velocity toward the satellite. According to you, the signal is transmitted at 10.22999999543 (MHz) and the signal is received on the ground at 10.23 (MHz), a faster rate (c+v). Hmm. That's interesting. I'll have to check it out. The point is, however, that the transmission frequency of the satellite has NOTHING to do with the difference in the rate of time at 20,200 kilometers versus at ground level. It is bizarre that you would think it does. As long as the transmission rate is ALWAYS 10.22999999543 (MHz) the transmission rate CANNOT affect the difference in the rate of TIME between the satellite and a ground station. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 10:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f947e09-f380-438c-8580-b43f2f51c65a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452207 |
El sábado, 10 de marzo de 2018, 14:11:04 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:41:24 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 9 de marzo de 2018, 19:52:34 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:58:06 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 9/03/2018 9:18 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > People on this forum argue that time ticks at the same rate > > > > > everywhere, and when a news article says otherwise, they CLAIM it is > > > > > just some scientist VULGARIZING or DUMBING DOWN the science for > > > > > stupid lay people. However, it seems more like LYING, if they say > > > > > something that is totally in disagreement with what they actually > > > > > believe. > > > > But the problem, Edward, it completely yours, since you do not understand even > > basic physics. > > > > Again, physicist know very well that an Caesium atomic clock will tick at > > precisely 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is located at ground and it will > > tick precisely at 9,192,631,770 (ticks/second) when it is orbiting the Earth at > > an altitude of 20200 (km). > > Agreed. A second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 ticks. So, a change in the INTERVALS between ticks cannot change the DEFINED second. > > > > > Physicist alse are quite aware that a Caesium atomic clock, ORBITING at 20200 > > (km) will be measured FROM THE GROUND to run faster (to accumulate seconds at a > > faster pace) 38,5 microseconds per day. > > Agreed. > > > > > That is the reason the GPS system adjusts the Caesium atomic clock, before > > launch, so that it generates a 10.22999999543 (MHz) reference signal. This > > reference signal, does not change when the GPS satellite is orbiting at 20200 > > (km), which is a proof the ticking rate is not affected by gravity or speed. > > WRONG. Before launch they adjust the clock to run SLOWER (to TICK FEWER THAN 9,192,631,770 ticks per second) because they know that when it is in orbit it will run FASTER. By adjusting the clock to run SLOWER while on the ground, it will run AT THE SAME RATE as normal ground clocks when it is in orbit. > This is, of course, something you have just made up, right Edward? You have been referred before to the oficial GPS documentation: https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf which on section 3.3.3.1 explains what is done and why it is done. > > The radio signals emitted by the satellite arrive to the ground at a reference > > frequency of 10.23 (MHz), proving that the path through spacetime is what > > generates the difference (the signal of frequency 10.22999999543 (MHz) at 20200 > > (km) is received on the ground at a frequency of 10.23 (MHz). > > > > You are completely unable to understand this, even if you have been provided > > with the references which state these FACTS. > > A change in frequency due to the difference in speeds between the GPS satellite and the ground station has nothing to do with anything. As long as the difference remains constant, it has no effect on anything. HOWEVER, you do seem to be saying that the satellite transmits at one frequency and the signals are received at another frequency, CONFIRMING once again that the speed of light is added to an observer's velocity when the observer is moving toward the source of the light. > Another nonsense of yours. Read the appropiate information at the link above to understand how the GPS works and why the relativistic correction is needed. > The GPS satellite is moving in orbit in the same direction the earth is spinning. So, a ground station on earth would be moving toward the satellite. The satellite transmits its signal at c (regardless of it's own velocity, according to Einstein's Second Postulate) and the ground station receives it at c+v, where v is the ground station's velocity toward the satellite. According to you, the signal is transmitted at 10.22999999543 (MHz) and the signal is received on the ground at 10.23 (MHz), a faster rate (c+v). > How complete nonsense is that!!! See the following figure to understand how wrong you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#/media/File:GPS24goldenSML.gif > Hmm. That's interesting. I'll have to check it out. > > The point is, however, that the transmission frequency of the satellite has NOTHING to do with the difference in the rate of time at 20,200 kilometers versus at ground level. It is bizarre that you would think it does. As long as the transmission rate is ALWAYS 10.22999999543 (MHz) the transmission rate CANNOT affect the difference in the rate of TIME between the satellite and a ground station. > > Ed You do not know what you are talking about and continue to make a fool of yourself!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 10:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e519ac92-2255-4532-823e-56fd8b94974e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452214 |
El sábado, 10 de marzo de 2018, 15:08:42 (UTC-3), Paparios escribió: > > This is, of course, something you have just made up, right Edward? > > You have been referred before to the oficial GPS documentation: > > https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf > > which on section 3.3.3.1 explains what is done and why it is done. > > Errata: It is on section 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web