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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356532 > unrolled thread

Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-10 11:47 +1000
    Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-11 18:52 +1000
      Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-11 11:35 +0200
        Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-11 04:32 -0700
        Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-11 21:35 +1000
          Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-11 14:17 +0200
            Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 17:04 -0700
            Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-13 10:10 +1000
            Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:15 -0700

#356532 — Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons

On 10/07/2015 8:26 AM, gggg wrote:
> paparios wrote:
>
>> So moronic idiot, yes, the GPS system does use relativity to adjust
>> clocks.
>
> Not even close. It does not use anything. It just adjust the clocks.
>

It uses relativity to determine by how much the clock rate must be adjusted.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#356698

On 11/07/2015 4:46 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d0b9teF10gaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> |It's not generally helpful to attach non-standard meanings to terms.
> |Nevertheless, for the moment, let's go with your definition of a proper
> |caesium clock, being one that operates with a frequency of 9192631770 Hz.
>
> It's not my definition. It's YOUR definition.
> And - whole Your briliant relativity is hanging on it.

That's all you have to say in response?

Sylvia.

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

#356699

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:d0c3pkF6kv0U1@mid.individual.net...

On 11/07/2015 4:46 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d0b9teF10gaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> |It's not generally helpful to attach non-standard meanings to terms.
> |Nevertheless, for the moment, let's go with your definition of a proper
> |caesium clock, being one that operates with a frequency of 9192631770 Hz.
>
> It's not my definition. It's YOUR definition.
> And - whole Your briliant relativity is hanging on it.

|That's all you have to say in response?

Isn't it enough?
OK, so I have a supposition alternative to Yours.
Let' s suppose, an observer from Earth don't want relativistic
clocks, standards and procedures at all. Suppose, that though
they look great in theory, though they are beautiful and
symmetrical, and they wonderfully match Your imagined
pictures,  they are also completely  useless.

Suppose, that observer from Earth prefers interpretation,
that Your "relativistic effects" are no kind of relativistic
effects, but just a simple, classical clock error. And that's
why he corrects these clocks.

Can You imagine something like that? 

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

#356705

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 3:36:02 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:d0c3pkF6kv0U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > |It's not generally helpful to attach non-standard meanings to terms.
> > |Nevertheless, for the moment, let's go with your definition of a proper
> > |caesium clock, being one that operates with a frequency of 9192631770 Hz.
> >
> > It's not my definition. It's YOUR definition.
> > And - whole Your briliant relativity is hanging on it.
> 
> |That's all you have to say in response?
> 
> Isn't it enough?
> OK, so I have a supposition alternative to Yours.
> Let' s suppose, an observer from Earth don't want relativistic
> clocks, standards and procedures at all. Suppose, that though
> they look great in theory, though they are beautiful and
> symmetrical, and they wonderfully match Your imagined
> pictures,  they are also completely  useless.
> 
> Suppose, that observer from Earth prefers interpretation,
> that Your "relativistic effects" are no kind of relativistic
> effects, but just a simple, classical clock error. And that's
> why he corrects these clocks.
> 
> Can You imagine something like that?

I can imagine all sorts of things that don't agree with reality.  So what?

Cesium beams are in inertial motion whether they're on earth or in space.
They are also temperature controlled and immune to other environmental
conditions.  So what could possibly cause your highly speculative error?
You are grasping at straws and have no valid argument whatever.  Knowledge
is your friend.

Gary

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

#356706

On 11/07/2015 7:35 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d0c3pkF6kv0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 11/07/2015 4:46 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
>> dyskusyjnych:d0b9teF10gaU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> |It's not generally helpful to attach non-standard meanings to terms.
>> |Nevertheless, for the moment, let's go with your definition of a proper
>> |caesium clock, being one that operates with a frequency of 9192631770
>> Hz.
>>
>> It's not my definition. It's YOUR definition.
>> And - whole Your briliant relativity is hanging on it.
>
> |That's all you have to say in response?
>
> Isn't it enough?
> OK, so I have a supposition alternative to Yours.
> Let' s suppose, an observer from Earth don't want relativistic
> clocks, standards and procedures at all. Suppose, that though
> they look great in theory, though they are beautiful and
> symmetrical, and they wonderfully match Your imagined
> pictures,  they are also completely  useless.
>
> Suppose, that observer from Earth prefers interpretation,
> that Your "relativistic effects" are no kind of relativistic
> effects, but just a simple, classical clock error. And that's
> why he corrects these clocks.

The problem with that view is that extent of the required adjustment was 
anticipated in advance, and is the same for all the satellites.

You're positing a scenario where there's no relativistic effect on the 
clocks, but that they all exhibit the same classical clock error, which 
just happens to be of the amount predicted by a theory that you consider 
inapplicable.

It's a tough sell.

Sylvia.

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

#356709

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:d0cdcbF8vreU1@mid.individual.net...


|You're positing a scenario where there's no relativistic effect on the
|clocks, but that they all exhibit the same classical clock error, which
|just happens to be of the amount predicted by a theory that you consider
|inapplicable.
|It's a tough sell.

No, it is not.
You're forgetting something. LET gives the same prediction, as SR.
LET is classical, SR relativistic. They have the same formulas.
Where is the difference? Right here. LET assumes clock error.
LET assumes, that if clocks unsynchronize, it's an error and corrections
are required. SR assumes time dilation. SR assumes unsynchronized
clocks are proper clocks. SR assumes no corrections are required.

Real difference between relativity and classical physics is - in
answering this question. Whether clocks should be synchronized,
or not. Formulas are the same, predictions are the same. It's just
that  - Your preferred answer to the question "how to set clocks"
is inconsistent with common sense,  i.e. stupid.

Tough sell?
A "standard" not used even by its creator - THAT's a tough sell.

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

#356914

El domingo, 12 de julio de 2015, 18:00:34 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:a59e6f4d-c97e-4ca7-85fe-0baaecc5fb5e@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El domingo, 12 de julio de 2015, 14:49:35 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:9cb6d854-4c0e-4fb7-9692-3d0156af9210@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > El domingo, 12 de julio de 2015, 6:14:10 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak 
> > escribió:
> >
> > >
> > > |http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
> > >
> > > Aaah! Someone has written something. As it's consistent
> > > with your opinion, it just has to be true, right?
> > >
> > > So, tell me, poor idiot, what is - in your opinion -
> > > the difference between the effect called "time
> > > dillation" and the effect called "clock error". Will You?
> >
> > |The poor idiot polish troll continues to be as moronic as always. Neither
> > time dilation nor clock error is involved in the GPS programmed offsett
> > clock frequency. The relativisitc effects are due to General |Relativity.
> >
> > The poor idiot relativist continues to be as moronic, as always.
> > And he still can't read questions.
> > I asked, what is the difference between.
> 
> |The poor computer programmer troll is unable to find or read the available 
> information on the subject and waits, as a baby, to be fed drop by drop.
> 
> |Clock error: In March 2015 the NIST-F2 caesium fountain clock reported a uB 
> of 1.5 × 10−16. At this frequency uncertainty, the NIST-F2 is expected to 
> neither gain nor lose a second in more than 211 |million (211 × 106) years.
> 
> Idiot physicist said!!!!!! must be truth!!!!!!
> 
> But, anyway, my question still is:
> What is the difference between a "clock error" effect
> and "time dillation"effect. How to distinguish, what
> we have.

Poor idiot moron programmer can not make a simple arithmetic caomparison.

1) Maximum clock error of an atomic clock is on the order of 1x10^-16
2) Clock frequency relativistic correction is Δf/f = -4.4647x10^-10

The Relativistic correction is near ONE million times the clock error of an atomic clock.

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

#356915

On 12/07/2015 10:44 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d0f2nkFt57hU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 12/07/2015 9:13 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
>> dyskusyjnych:d0ertcFrebkU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> |I create two accurate clocks that are immune to environmental effects.
>> |They stay synchronised when next to each other on the ground. I launch
>> |one into a circular equatorial orbit. I keep the other on the ground at
>> |the equator. I then contrive to view the clock in orbit through at
>> |telescope each time it passes directly overhead.
>> |There is obviously some delay due to the time the light takes to get
>> |from the clock in orbit down to me, but I can cancel that out by
>> |considering only the difference between successive readings on the
>> clock.
>> |So, what will I see?
>> |a) The readings on the clock in orbit advance at the same rate as the
>> |readings on the clock here on Earth.
>> |b) The readings on the clock in orbit advance faster.
>> |c) The readings on the clock in orbit advance slower.
>>
>> According to relativity, You will see a,b or c depending on
>> alitude. AFAIR.
>
> |And according to your theory?
>
> According to my theory, it depends on theory.

What does that mean?
>
>
>> But real question is - how are You going to determine they
>> are immune? You can't do it.
>
> |It's a thought experiment. If I say they're immune, then they are.
>
> Exactly. That simply means - every answer is possible.

It's a constraint, so it reduces the possible answers. In the particular 
instance, its purpose is to avoid the possibility that just being in 
space affects the clock.

You do seem to be avoiding the issue, suggesting that you know very well 
that your position is untenable.

Sylvia.

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

#357122

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:20:23 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 14 lipca 2015 00:47:52 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > El lunes, 13 de julio de 2015, 17:31:03 (UTC-3), al...@interia.pl  escribió:
> > > W dniu niedziela, 12 lipca 2015 20:31:23 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > >  
> > > > Another polish troll. Did you work with the other idiot?
> > > 
> > > No, i work aginst the virgin idiots only - like you.
> > > 
> > > BTW. I'm an israelite nazi - catched... debil?
> > 
> > So you share with the other idiot a very poor English.
> > 
> > You are not even wrong!!
> 
> No, the english is poor languige only.
> 
> And you are an imbecile in the gramatics,
> because there is english only, not any English exists! :)
> 
> Go to school babe...
> maybe you discover the grammatical basics, at long last...
> of the Babes languige only, of course. :)

What an idiot.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web