Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386066 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-17 09:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-30 21:18 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:43 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-18 06:23 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:49 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-18 07:07 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 05:36 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:57 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 06:40 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 09:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 05:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 07:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 18:11 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 20:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:24 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 09:09 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 21:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-23 17:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 08:32 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 14:20 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 16:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-26 06:07 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 16:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 17:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-27 06:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:21 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 12:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-27 17:10 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 17:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 05:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-20 00:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 05:47 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-20 19:17 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 17:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 05:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:26 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:48 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:48 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:08 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:22 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:59 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-06-17 12:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 13:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 17:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:23 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:00 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 08:43 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:35 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 20:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 07:22 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 14:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:52 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 17:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:03 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:19 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-23 17:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:36 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:51 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 14:24 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:35 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:53 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:57 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:05 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 07:20 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:20 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-23 17:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 16:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:57 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 13:48 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 22:39 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 07:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-27 23:25 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 09:01 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-27 23:18 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 22:19 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:27 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 19:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:48 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 22:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 21:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 09:06 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-28 06:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-28 16:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-28 14:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 17:10 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:32 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:40 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:03 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:35 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:23 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 15:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 01:16 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 04:00 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 09:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:46 -0700
are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-03 14:45 -0700
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-04 00:38 -0700
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 17:08 +0000
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 05:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:05 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:08 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 18:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:49 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:18 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 04:05 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 17:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 15:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-01 04:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:43 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 20:03 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-04 19:23 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-04 19:25 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-03 23:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-04 04:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:55 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 17:23 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 19:39 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:33 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 08:14 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-29 10:29 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:24 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:39 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 11:31 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:38 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 03:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 19:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-06-30 21:18 +0200
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92534558-43a4-4562-9f22-68139806c76d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386775 |
On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:26:24 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 9:18:26 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 6/26/16 6/26/16 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > The problem scientists have is that their definition of time, a certain > > > number of transitions of a cesium isotope atom, is subject to conditions of > > > motion and gravitation, which causes the rate of transitions to change > > > according to local conditions. > > > > No. This is not a "problem that scientists have", it is a problem that PEOPLE > > WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND MODERN PHYSICS HAVE. Such as you. > > > > Our current definition of time works as well as it possibly could -- > > i.e. in agreement with all measurements and experiments performed to date. > > > > > > > So there is no definition of time that will satisfy all conditions. > > > > Yes, there is. It's just that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS. It is downright stupid > > for someone like you, who is not a scientist, to ASSUME that whatever they don't > > know about "does not exist". > > > > The key point that you fail to understand is that time is NOT some "global > > entity", or something that "exists everywhere". Rather, time is defined ALONG A > > PATH, and is PATH DEPENDENT, where the path is a trajectory through spacetime. > > Understanding this requires a MAJOR change in outlook on the world. > > > > > > > If scientists are going to persist in saying that transotions of a cesium > > > isotope atom control all things, > > > > NOBODY "persists in saying that". Indeed it is clearly wrong. > > > > What modern physics says is that the LOCAL laws of physics are the same > > everywhere, in any LOCAL region no matter where it is located or how it might > > move relative to anything else. This directly implies that the hyperfine > > transitions of Cs133 are a suitable definition of the second, because it is one > > that applies EVERYWHERE and EVERYWHEN, but only in a local region. The > > limitation to a local region is imposed by the world we inhabit, not by any > > person or theory. > > > > > > > As I said, time is either relative or it is not. > > > > But you are wrong. Elapsed time is PATH DEPENDENT. Depending on what your words > > mean, this could either be "relative" or not. But when used by people who > > actually understand modern physics, there is never any ambiguity -- the > > confusion and apparent contradictions are YOURS AND YOURS ALONE (except that > > many people around here share them). > > > > > > > What scientists are doing with their definition of scientific or atomic time > > > is saying that a second is the basic building block of the universe. > > > > NONSENSE! I have no idea where you get such silly notions. Rather, the second is > > a basic time interval useful for measuring phenomena in the world we inhabit. > > > > > > > [... further arrogant nonsense demonstrating a COMPLETE lack of > > > understanding of modern physics, and a silly expectation he can dictate > > > behavior to the universe by simply writing down his fantasies] > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > From a footnote in Kaku and Thompson's "Beyond Einstein" > (from back when 1995 was state-of-the art): > > "In this respect, Planck's constant h plays the same > role in the quantum theory that c, the speed of light, > plays in relativity. The world of the quantum theory > and relativity seems totally alien to us only because > the speed of light is such a large, unattainable speed > and Planck's constant is so small. In fact, our > "commonsense" intuition about the universe is correct > only if c were actually infinite and h were zero; then > both relativistic and quantum effects would disappear > exactly." > > > We have QED to thank for renormalization for tractability > of computation of values with respect to other known > quantities (eg CODATA). > > Yet, there remains to follow a placement of the overall > relation where it is annotated in allusion (as maximal). I'm quite impressed with "Beyond Einstein" for the narrative of historical and conceptual development of 20th-century physics. "Previously, physicists believed that they could write down many possible self-consistent theories of the universe that were relativistic and obeyed quantum mechanics. Now, to our surprise, we are finding that perhaps the conditions for the elimination of divergences and anomalies are so stringent that only one theory is allowed." Here this is still for an SU^N gauge theory, reading Penrose for a spinor development, there are being determined some footholds for the pitons of the revision of the development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 09:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nkt7lp$3qi$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #386772 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:-audnbmCtPYRZ-zKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com... |Our current definition of time works as well as it possibly could -- A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. As we can see at GPS, even your bunch of idiots is not stupid enough to really use your moronic standards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fef9784-7859-4a4b-b883-fbf2d100d330@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386772 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:18:26 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/26/16 6/26/16 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > The problem scientists have is that their definition of time, a certain > > number of transitions of a cesium isotope atom, is subject to conditions of > > motion and gravitation, which causes the rate of transitions to change > > according to local conditions. > > No. This is not a "problem that scientists have", it is a problem that PEOPLE > WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND MODERN PHYSICS HAVE. Such as you. > > Our current definition of time works as well as it possibly could -- > i.e. in agreement with all measurements and experiments performed to date. > > > > So there is no definition of time that will satisfy all conditions. > > Yes, there is. It's just that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS. It is downright stupid > for someone like you, who is not a scientist, to ASSUME that whatever they don't > know about "does not exist". > > The key point that you fail to understand is that time is NOT some "global > entity", or something that "exists everywhere". Rather, time is defined ALONG > A PATH, and is PATH DEPENDENT, where the path is a trajectory through spacetime. > Understanding this requires a MAJOR change in outlook on the world. Time is a global entity but we do not have a unit of clock time interval(including a clock second) that represents the same amount of global time in different frames. That's why we invented the SR/GR math to link time globally. The GPS uses global time to synch the GPS with the ground clock by redefine the GPS second 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 and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of global time. > > > > If scientists are going to persist in saying that transotions of a cesium > > isotope atom control all things, > > NOBODY "persists in saying that". Indeed it is clearly wrong. > > What modern physics says is that the LOCAL laws of physics are the same > everywhere, in any LOCAL region no matter where it is located or how it might > move relative to anything else. This directly implies that the hyperfine > transitions of Cs133 are a suitable definition of the second, because it is one > that applies EVERYWHERE and EVERYWHEN, but only in a local region. The > limitation to a local region is imposed by the world we inhabit, not by any > person or theory. > > > > As I said, time is either relative or it is not. > > But you are wrong. Elapsed time is PATH DEPENDENT. Depending on what your words > mean, this could either be "relative" or not. But when used by people who > actually understand modern physics, there is never any ambiguity -- the > confusion and apparent contradictions are YOURS AND YOURS ALONE (except that > many people around here share them). > > > > What scientists are doing with their definition of scientific or atomic time > > is saying that a second is the basic building block of the universe. > > NONSENSE! I have no idea where you get such silly notions. Rather, the second is > a basic time interval useful for measuring phenomena in the world we inhabit. > > > > [... further arrogant nonsense demonstrating a COMPLETE lack of > > understanding of modern physics, and a silly expectation he can dictate > > behavior to the universe by simply writing down his fantasies] > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nku7ft$tvn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386804 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Time is a global entity but we do not have a unit of clock time >interval(including a clock second) that represents the same amount of >global time in different frames. That's why we invented the SR/GR math to >link time globally. The GPS uses global time to synch the GPS with the >ground clock by redefine the GPS second 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 and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock >in terms of global time. Ken, I just told you. Just because you don't understand SR/GR doesn't mean you can attribute defective IRT beliefs to SR/GR. Keep your IRT beliefs to IRT and don't blame SR/GR for being wrong because your IRT beliefs you blame on GR/SR happen to be wrong. Here again, you use one of the most glaring examples of wrong IRT beliefs attributed to GR. You reposted that same incorrect crap about "redefining the GPS second" here when there is no such thing. An observer that was actually riding along with a GPS satellite would observe its clock (now a local clock) as WRONG because it is not set to the definition of a second. If the observer also happened to have a properly functioning Cs clock (by "properly functioning" I mean it uses 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles as exactly one second, the definition of a second) he could observe the GPS clock as running slow. Adjusting the GPS clock frequency so it doesn't tick at one second is just like if a railroad mistuned a train's horn in order that people standing along the track would hear the train horn sound at exactly Middle C as a speeding train approaches. Nobody would ever say the railroad "redefined the train Middle C" as B flat or something! Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR and GR state?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <292e6ede-ac1d-454f-aeed-7cc9453db255@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386815 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:10:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >Time is a global entity but we do not have a unit of clock time > >interval(including a clock second) that represents the same amount of > >global time in different frames. That's why we invented the SR/GR math to > >link time globally. The GPS uses global time to synch the GPS with the > >ground clock by redefine the GPS second 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 and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock > >in terms of global time. > > Ken, I just told you. Just because you don't understand SR/GR doesn't mean > you can attribute defective IRT beliefs to SR/GR. Keep your IRT beliefs to > IRT and don't blame SR/GR for being wrong because your IRT beliefs you > blame on GR/SR happen to be wrong. > > Here again, you use one of the most glaring examples of wrong IRT beliefs > attributed to GR. You reposted that same incorrect crap about "redefining > the GPS second" here when there is no such thing. So moron.....they didn't offset the GPS to the calculated definition for the second before launch??? Gee you are so stupid. > An observer that was > actually riding along with a GPS satellite would observe its clock (now a > local clock) as WRONG because it is not set to the definition of a second. Idiot moron....this is designed to make it running at global time. One of this redefined second represents the same amount of global time as a standard ground clock second. Gee you are so stupid. > If the observer also happened to have a properly functioning Cs clock (by > "properly functioning" I mean it uses 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles as exactly one > second, the definition of a second) he could observe the GPS clock as > running slow. You got this wrong....there can be no properly functioning cs clock up at the GPS location. If there was it will observe an unmodified GPS second as running fast. Gee you are a stupid moron. > > Adjusting the GPS clock frequency so it doesn't tick at one second is just > like if a railroad mistuned a train's horn in order that people standing > along the track would hear the train horn sound at exactly Middle C as a > speeding train approaches. Nobody would ever say the railroad "redefined > the train Middle C" as B flat or something! > > Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR > and GR state?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <401b6125-9249-4ea5-9a53-57e5b8a12996@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386844 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute > motion. > > An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. Your two statements contradict each other. Can you tell me which of them is correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkusk8$7kv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386848 |
On 6/28/2016 4:45 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> >> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute >> motion. >> >> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. > > Your two statements contradict each other. Can you tell me which of them is correct? > I think you know by now that Ken's ideas are hopelessly mucked up. I think you also know by now that Ken is incapable of acknowledging that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9481ce3f-1a1b-4740-8c1a-a62fa37f9135@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386848 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute > > motion. > > > > An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 10:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl0pll$mju$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386892 |
On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute >>> motion. >>> >>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. > > I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. > > Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with "has no specific direction"? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e014a5b-945f-4f81-96e0-9f0859502bef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386895 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute > >>> motion. > >>> > >>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. > > > > I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. > > > > > > Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with > "has no specific direction"? Idiot....how do they conflict???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 15:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1boc$1imu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386924 |
On 6/29/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute >>>>> motion. >>>>> >>>>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. >>> >>> I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. >>> >>> >> >> Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with >> "has no specific direction"? > > Idiot....how do they conflict??? > Seriously, Ken? "has an" vs. "has no"? And you don't see a conflict? How about in these sentences: "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO argument". See any conflict? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f905b379-722d-4c73-931a-bf4079cd94dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386927 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4:40:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute > >>>>> motion. > >>>>> > >>>>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. > >>> > >>> I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with > >> "has no specific direction"? > > > > Idiot....how do they conflict??? > > > > Seriously, Ken? > "has an" vs. "has no"? Idiot I said "has no specific" Gee you are stupid. > And you don't see a conflict? > > How about in these sentences: > "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO argument". > See any conflict? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1k4o$1u98$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386941 |
On 6/29/2016 5:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4:40:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute >>>>>>> motion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. >>>>> >>>>> I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with >>>> "has no specific direction"? >>> >>> Idiot....how do they conflict??? >>> >> >> Seriously, Ken? >> "has an" vs. "has no"? > > Idiot I said "has no specific" Gee you are stupid. And this doesn't conflict with "has an"? Ken, come clean. Do you speak English? > >> And you don't see a conflict? >> >> How about in these sentences: >> "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO argument". > > > >> See any conflict? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <502fe0ca-436d-4290-8a25-00fd03adba8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386942 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 7:03:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/29/2016 5:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4:40:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/29/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute > >>>>>>> motion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. > >>>>> > >>>>> I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with > >>>> "has no specific direction"? > >>> > >>> Idiot....how do they conflict??? > >>> > >> > >> Seriously, Ken? > >> "has an" vs. "has no"? > > > > Idiot I said "has no specific" Gee you are stupid. > > And this doesn't conflict with "has an"? Moron....the complete phrase is: has an but not measurable direction. Gee you are stupid. > > Ken, come clean. Do you speak English? > > > > >> And you don't see a conflict? > >> > >> How about in these sentences: > >> "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO argument". > > > > > > > >> See any conflict? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl36h3$8in$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386968 |
On 6/30/2016 7:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 7:03:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 5:55 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4:40:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/29/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/29/2016 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:50:04 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute >>>>>>>>> motion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I said: an object by itself has no SPECIFIC DIRECTION of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you understand that "has an unmeasurable direction" conflicts with >>>>>> "has no specific direction"? >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....how do they conflict??? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seriously, Ken? >>>> "has an" vs. "has no"? >>> >>> Idiot I said "has no specific" Gee you are stupid. >> >> And this doesn't conflict with "has an"? > > Moron....the complete phrase is: has an but not measurable direction. Gee you are stupid. "has an but not measurable direction"?? Ken, do you speak English? Are you still learning how to speak English? Why should anybody engage in a conversation with you in English if you don't speak the language? >> >> Ken, come clean. Do you speak English? >> >>> >>>> And you don't see a conflict? >>>> >>>> How about in these sentences: >>>> "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO argument". >>> >>> >>> >>>> See any conflict? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1fb71ca-e2a3-4131-b35c-1ceaaf94b547@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386977 |
He's not going to relent, and I warned as much two or three years ago. Almost certainly a case of untreated mental illness. Or, maybe it's one of those Japanese shame - honor thingos, where now that Seto has revealed his name along with all the family shame and dishonor his stupidity generates, his only hope of restoring dignity will be to fight to the very bitter end. Then, he will be remembered in a family proverb along the lines of which, “It is better to be wrong and never give in, than to be wrong and accept failure." Kamikaze Ken Seto. Did anyone see that movie "Dark Matter" about the Asian student who was hallucinating about aether, and for a moment everyone thought he was some genius, till he got the cold shoulder - so then decided to lay his teachers and classmates to waste ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1195be15-863b-44f7-83ab-ec0b6bf69492@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386989 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 2:22:48 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > He's not going to relent, and I warned as much two or three years ago. Idiot your argument is based on the bogus assumption that your argument is correct and mine was wrong. >Almost certainly a case of untreated mental illness. Or, maybe it's one of those Japanese shame - honor thingos, where now that Seto has revealed his name along with all the family shame and dishonor his stupidity generates, his only hope of restoring dignity will be to fight to the very bitter end. Then, he will be remembered in a family proverb along the lines of which, “It is better to be wrong and never give in, than to be wrong and accept failure." > > Kamikaze Ken Seto. This exposed you as a racist. so go fuck yourself. > > Did anyone see that movie "Dark Matter" about the Asian student who was hallucinating about aether, and for a moment everyone thought he was some genius, till he got the cold shoulder - so then decided to lay his teachers and classmates to waste ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 01:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0098b7e9-3d4d-4eea-b074-c013a10f817b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386989 |
Racist ? Ha ha, nah just trying to work out your motives. With voting patterns today, around 1/2 the world will hate us whatever we say or do. Meanwhile, I hope the FBI or federal police keep an eye on you. Who knows what you will sink to after realizing that your entire assumption [about changing the cycle of clock seconds on a GPS clock] contradicts your absolute time thing. The whole point of doing that would be to synchronize the outdated clocks with ground clocks. I don't even think that's how it's done. At least since you know so little about clocks we could rule you out for successfully building clock activated explosives. Once upon a time, (I never had this problem with relative time so much because clocks can only be locally programmed relative to non-local clocks - rather I argued that time was made by humans) I was stuck on the issue of absolute space and even questioned the possibility of an aether. You may remember the arguments between wizard and I ? The reason for that was because force could seemingly happen for bodies without an infinite number of application bodies being involved (a body could squash as though it were being pressed from both sides when only pressed from one). So I resolved, I think, the problem of resistance to motion change (at least in my mind) by deriving some new equations for inertia from Newton's laws. What they basically showed, is that the inertia of a body is not dependent on its intrinsic rest mass alone, but also depends on the intrinsic rest mass of an application body. I gave the equations here. It's not like the equations solve any known problems in physics, as no one other than myself seemed to be looking at it. The thing with time though, is that ppl have been working on clock experiments for so long now, every one knows that a principle of locality dictates how two clocks separated by some distance in relative motion might have but will not *share* the same time rate. But as with all science, all we can possibly know is where we choose to look. You have much less of a chance demonstrating so with your current theory. It's just baloney. Could you look at the question of absolute time probabilistically I wonder ? If you could show how two clocks not communicating locally in any way (i.e obtain a Bell inequality certification) seemed to correlate VIA some correlation point that was relatable by Lorentz transform to these two clock', that could be interesting. It would be a mundane pursuit, at least to my knowledge, since it would boil down to needing SR again. However, you might be able to show that the two clocks DO (or don't) tick at the same rate. This probably wouldn't be mundane, and may be a useful way to check or synchronize clocks from a control point? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ce4fb69-ad5c-45f2-b618-73460a4f0e42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387025 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 10:16:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Y napisał: > Racist ? Ha ha, nah just trying to work out your motives. A paedophile? Ha ha, nah just trying to work out your motives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 09:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <560040e4-5ea0-4808-916b-0a306fbf3c8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387025 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 4:16:19 AM UTC-4, Y wrote: > Racist ? Ha ha, nah just trying to work out your motives. With voting patterns today, around 1/2 the world will hate us whatever we say or do. Meanwhile, I hope the FBI or federal police keep an eye on you. Who knows what you will sink to after realizing that your entire assumption [about changing the cycle of clock seconds on a GPS clock] contradicts your absolute time thing. The whole point of doing that would be to synchronize the outdated clocks with ground clocks. I don't even think that's how it's done. At least since you know so little about clocks we could rule you out for successfully building clock activated explosives. > > Once upon a time, (I never had this problem with relative time so much because clocks can only be locally programmed relative to non-local clocks - rather I argued that time was made by humans) I was stuck on the issue of absolute space and even questioned the possibility of an aether. You may remember the arguments between wizard and I ? The reason for that was because force could seemingly happen for bodies without an infinite number of application bodies being involved (a body could squash as though it were being pressed from both sides when only pressed from one). So I resolved, I think, the problem of resistance to motion change (at least in my mind) by deriving some new equations for inertia from Newton's laws. What they basically showed, is that the inertia of a body is not dependent on its intrinsic rest mass alone, but also depends on the intrinsic rest mass of an application body. I gave the equations here. It's not like the equations solve any known problems in physics, as no one other than myself seemed to be looking at it. > > The thing with time though, is that ppl have been working on clock experiments for so long now, every one knows that a principle of locality dictates how two clocks separated by some distance in relative motion might have but will not *share* the same time rate. But as with all science, all we can possibly know is where we choose to look. You have much less of a chance demonstrating so with your current theory. It's just baloney. > > Could you look at the question of absolute time probabilistically I wonder ? If you could show how two clocks not communicating locally in any way (i.e obtain a Bell inequality certification) seemed to correlate VIA some correlation point that was relatable by Lorentz transform to these two clock', that could be interesting. It would be a mundane pursuit, at least to my knowledge, since it would boil down to needing SR again. However, you might be able to show that the two clocks DO (or don't) tick at the same rate. This probably wouldn't be mundane, and may be a useful way to check or synchronize clocks from a control point? Hey moron.... 1.you got your theory (SR/GR?), 2.Tom Roberts got SR/GR based on flexible time and space to maintain constant light speed in all frames; this leads to the conclusion that a clock second is a universal interval of time; but the SR math says that the passage of a clock second does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in different frames this leads to the conclusion that a clock second is not a universal interval of time. 3. I have a theory called IRT. IRT is based on the existence of absolute time but there is no clock time unit (including the clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames, IOW a clock second is not a universal interval of time; In IRT, the local speed of light isotropic c; the incoming speed of light is variable dependent on the state of absolute motions of the source and the observer; IRT eliminates all the paradoxes of SRT; The math of IRT includes the math of SRT as a subset. You have the nerve to come out and lecture me for not listening to you or Tom Roberts.....gee what a moron you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web