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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e465b3ee-b4bf-42d3-9b95-bae6257c8f08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387041 |
We don't need IRT for that. Even if by some experimental miracle what you say is true, we could revert to Lorentz Aether Theory (LET), where absolute time and spare are accounted for. This is probably the most significant indication that what you're trying to achieve is totally useless. It's that it was already done and already shown to fail. Instead, maybe you could look at (what I think others are trying to do) better integrate SR with QM, where via entanglement it may be possible to devise a universal synchronization for clocks. Bear in mind, doing so would be ingenious and no doubt go unrecognized. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68c89dad-164b-4a76-b1e6-ad1c5ba68d1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387045 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 1:35:44 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > We don't need IRT for that. Even if by some experimental miracle what you say is true, we could revert to Lorentz Aether Theory (LET), where absolute time and spare are accounted for. Idiot.....LET and SR are the same......they both are incomplete. IRT is the only complete theory. Gee you are stupid. > > This is probably the most significant indication that what you're trying to achieve is totally useless. It's that it was already done and already shown to fail. Fucking idiot. > > Instead, maybe you could look at (what I think others are trying to do) better integrate SR with QM, where via entanglement it may be possible to devise a universal synchronization for clocks. Bear in mind, doing so would be ingenious and no doubt go unrecognized. > Fucking idiot.....I already told you that there is no unit of clock time that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a58eb1a-0663-4485-beed-de0742d93d2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387062 |
Nah, LET is NOT exactly the same as SR. Maybe that's why you've wasted so much time ? Dear oh dear poor Ken, you should try to read more about that which you claim expertise. One part of LET contains SR in virtual entirety. The other part relates it all back to a stationary aether aka absolute time and space. We don't need your theory therefore Ken, we can use the LET. Someone beat you to it man... I'm not saying this to try and upset you, ask anyone. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 14:45 -0700 |
| Subject | are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? |
| Message-ID | <93cc5edc-f4eb-4c63-8ae8-2478e28f3d3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387073 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 8:46:14 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > Nah, LET is NOT exactly the same as SR. Maybe that's why you've wasted so much time ? Dear oh dear poor Ken, you should try to read more about that which you claim expertise. SR and LET are exactly the same theory. LET assumes the aether frame to derive its math and the inertial frames of SR are merely different locations in the stationary aether. That's why SR and LET have the same math. > > One part of LET contains SR in virtual entirety. The other part relates it all back to a stationary aether aka absolute time and space. > > We don't need your theory therefore Ken, we can use the LET. Someone beat you to it man... > > I'm not saying this to try and upset you, ask anyone. > > -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 00:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? |
| Message-ID | <a72bd9bb-9184-4d23-bfff-82e4214a0ecd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387140 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:45:07 AM UTC+10, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 8:46:14 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > > Nah, LET is NOT exactly the same as SR. Maybe that's why you've wasted so much time ? Dear oh dear poor Ken, you should try to read more about that which you claim expertise. > > SR and LET are exactly the same theory. No they aren't. > LET assumes the aether frame to derive its math and the inertial frames of SR are merely different locations in the stationary aether. That's why SR and LET have the same math. No they don't. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 17:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? |
| Message-ID | <nle55r$ag6$7@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387149 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:38:25 AM UTC-4, Y wrote: >> > LET assumes the aether frame to derive its math and the inertial frames of SR are merely different locations in the stationary aether. That's why SR and LET have the same math. >> >> >> No they don't. >Yes they do. Ken, you repeatedly state "Assertion is not a valid argument". Yet you keep making that same incorrect assertion over and over again. Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 05:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? |
| Message-ID | <493a1711-8ba6-44ff-bb96-849b5a3c9a14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387149 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 3:38:25 AM UTC-4, Y wrote: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:45:07 AM UTC+10, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 8:46:14 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > > > Nah, LET is NOT exactly the same as SR. Maybe that's why you've wasted so much time ? Dear oh dear poor Ken, you should try to read more about that which you claim expertise. > > > > SR and LET are exactly the same theory. > > > No they aren't. Yes they are. The difference is that SR calls the different locations on the ether as inertial frames. > > > > LET assumes the aether frame to derive its math and the inertial frames of SR are merely different locations in the stationary aether. That's why SR and LET have the same math. > > > No they don't. Yes they do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 18:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1k8a$1u98$2@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 you don't see a conflict? >> >> How about in these sentences: >> "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO argument". OK so do these conflict, in your opinion? "Ken HAS AN argument" and "Ken HAS NO SPECIFIC argument". If you speak English, do you sometimes get complaints that your English is not very good? > > > >> See any conflict? >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-06-29 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7ed5265-0a3c-4d38-917d-2659d26a6e18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386924 |
Ken. Case in point. When people argued with me that I could not produce an interference pattern with a modified peg board (with balls dropped one at a time), and the argument escalated, instead of sitting there and calling everyone an idiot I just did the test for myself. So if you think global time (or absolute time) exists, do a test and show how *if* you're right. If you don't, then this simply isn't your life's work/hobby/interest is it? Why don't you first try to sit down and draw an experimental setup demonstrating in principle how it works then post it? In the meantime, perhaps everyone here might consider giving you the opportunity to do this by ignoring you until you do. It seems to me this won't happen as you're caught in a stubborn delusion - one so stubborn, it seems you're not even aware that this is a topic of science and the only way to settle an argument of any kind is with experimental evidence. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 05:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e147c9c-fdbf-4291-b9f3-25679094308c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386944 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 9:08:56 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > Ken. > > Case in point. > > When people argued with me that I could not produce an interference pattern with a modified peg board (with balls dropped one at a time), and the argument escalated, instead of sitting there and calling everyone an idiot I just did the test for myself. So if you think global time (or absolute time) exists, do a test and show how *if* you're right. If you don't, then this simply isn't your life's work/hobby/interest is it? The GPS supports the existence of global time. 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 GPS second contains the same amount of global time as the ground clock second and thus the GPS and the ground clock are in synch in terms of global time. > .... > Why don't you first try to sit down and draw an experimental setup demonstrating in principle how it works then post it? In the meantime, perhaps everyone here might consider giving you the opportunity to do this by ignoring you until you do. It seems to me this won't happen as you're caught in a stubborn delusion - one so stubborn, it seems you're not even aware that this is a topic of science and the only way to settle an argument of any kind is with experimental evidence. > > -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl12tb$ftv$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386844 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:10:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> 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. Of course not. They simply deliberately set the clock in such a way the signal will be RECEIVED at a certain frequency/period. Just like tuning a locomotive's horn to B flat so that people at the station will hear an approaching speeding train at Middle C, doesn't redefine Middle C! >> 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. There is no global time. As I keep telling you, don't attribute to SR/GR your incorrect IRT ideas! > One of this redefined second There is no such thing as a redefined second. Just like there is no such thing as a redefined Middle C in locomotives. >> 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. Of course there is. If the clock pulses once for every 9,192,631,770 Cs atom transitions, it will be, BY DEFINITION (of a second), accurate locally, and will keep perfect proper time as far as any co-moving observer will see. At the same time, the same observer, riding along with a GPS satellite, will see the GPS's internal clock as slightly INaccurate because it ticks once every 9,192,631,774.46 Cs transitions, not 9,192,631,770. And the train's engineer will hear its own horn sounding at B flat. Different causes (GR time effects opposed to the audio Doppler effect) but the same result. Again, don't blame SR/GR for your IRT ideas. >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR >> and GR state? No response?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <669e5231-c169-4453-93a4-c9963a0c3d5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386914 |
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:10:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:10:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > Of course not. They simply deliberately set the clock in such a way the > signal will be RECEIVED at a certain frequency/period. Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > Just like tuning a locomotive's horn to B flat so that people at the station > will hear an approaching speeding train at Middle C, doesn't redefine Middle > C! > > >> 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. > SR/GR is There is no global time. As I keep telling you, don't attribute to SR/GR > your incorrect IRT ideas! I didn't attribute any IRT ideas to SR/GR. I said that SR is incomplete and GR is wrong. > > > One of this redefined second > > There is no such thing as a redefined second. Just like there is no such > thing as a redefined Middle C in locomotives. > > >> 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. > > Of course there is. If the clock pulses once for every 9,192,631,770 Cs > atom transitions, it will be, BY DEFINITION (of a second), accurate locally, > and will keep perfect proper time as far as any co-moving observer will see. > > At the same time, the same observer, riding along with a GPS satellite, will > see the GPS's internal clock as slightly INaccurate because it ticks once > every 9,192,631,774.46 Cs transitions, not 9,192,631,770. > > And the train's engineer will hear its own horn sounding at B flat. > Different causes (GR time effects opposed to the audio Doppler effect) but > the same result. > > Again, don't blame SR/GR for your IRT ideas. > > >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR > >> and GR state? > > No response?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 16:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl1e01$1m8k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386929 |
On 6/29/2016 3:49 PM, kenseto wrote: >> Of course not. They simply deliberately set the clock in such a way the >> > signal will be RECEIVED at a certain frequency/period. > Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have 4.4647 > more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No, it is not the only way. It's the only way YOU can think of off the top of your head. But then again, you know so little about how scientists do things.... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 04:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl25q2$ett$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386929 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:10:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Of course not. They simply deliberately set the clock in such a way the >> signal will be RECEIVED at a certain frequency/period. >Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have >4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, never will be. Quit making crap up. Do you even understand the train horn analogy? >> There is no global time. As I keep telling you, don't attribute to SR/GR >> your incorrect IRT ideas! >I didn't attribute any IRT ideas to SR/GR. Yes you did. You keep asserting IRT crap like the "GPS second" and attributing it to SR/GR. Even though you keep stating "Assertion is not a valid argument" you repeatedly make assertions like that. Why? >> >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR >> >> and GR state? >> >> No response? Still no response?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51a7d1f4-2b94-4beb-a13c-70cc41ea0331@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386954 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:06:09 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:10:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >> 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. > >> > >> Of course not. They simply deliberately set the clock in such a way the > >> signal will be RECEIVED at a certain frequency/period. > > >Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have > >4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A > "GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 > Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, > never will be. Quit making crap up. Fucking moron....On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:06:09 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:10:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> >> 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. > >> > >> Of course not. They simply deliberately set the clock in such a way the > >> signal will be RECEIVED at a certain frequency/period. > > >Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have > >4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A > "GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 > Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, > never will be. Quit making crap up. Fucking moron....9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles up at the GPS location represents the same amount of global time as 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles on the ground. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > Do you even understand the train horn analogy? > > >> There is no global time. As I keep telling you, don't attribute to SR/GR > >> your incorrect IRT ideas! > > >I didn't attribute any IRT ideas to SR/GR. > > Yes you did. You keep asserting IRT crap like the "GPS second" and > attributing it to SR/GR. Even though you keep stating "Assertion is not a > valid argument" you repeatedly make assertions like that. Why? > > >> >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR > >> >> and GR state? > >> > >> No response? > > Still no response? > > Do you even understand the train horn analogy? > > >> There is no global time. As I keep telling you, don't attribute to SR/GR > >> your incorrect IRT ideas! > > >I didn't attribute any IRT ideas to SR/GR. > > Yes you did. You keep asserting IRT crap like the "GPS second" and > attributing it to SR/GR. Even though you keep stating "Assertion is not a > valid argument" you repeatedly make assertions like that. Why? > > >> >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR > >> >> and GR state? > >> > >> No response? > > Still no response?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl3k0k$cs$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386970 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:06:09 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have >> >4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >> >> Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A >> "GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 >> Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, >> never will be. Quit making crap up. >Fucking moron....9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles up at the GPS location >represents the same amount of global time as 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles on the >ground. Gee you are so fucking stupid. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "global time"! That is a crap IRT concept. The 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycle clock does NOT tick at a 1 second rate, it runs slow just like the train horn in my example is tuned flat. Anyone with a proper 1 second Cs clock riding along with a GPS satellite would see this. GR/SR state time is path dependent and states there is no such thing as global time. So quit blaming SR/GR for having your broken IRT concepts. > Do you even understand the train horn analogy? No answer? >> >> >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR >> >> >> and GR state? >> >> >> >> No response? >> >> Still no response? Still no response?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <502d715e-ae9f-44c8-acbf-4aa8c6fa4ce4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386984 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:14:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:06:09 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >Idiot....the way they achieve that is by setting the GPS second to have > >> >4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> > >> Once again you attribute IRT crap to SR/GR. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A > >> "GPS SECOND"! There is simply a second, which is defined as 9,192,631,770 > >> Cs cycles. 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles is NOT a second. Never was, > >> never will be. Quit making crap up. > > >Fucking moron....9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles up at the GPS location > >represents the same amount of global time as 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles on the > >ground. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "global time"! Moron denying reality is not scientific. >That is a crap IRT concept. The > 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycle clock does NOT tick at a 1 second rate, It is up at the GPS location. Gee you are stupid. it runs > slow just like the train horn in my example is tuned flat. Anyone with a > proper 1 second Cs clock riding along with a GPS satellite would see this. > > GR/SR state time is path dependent and states there is no such thing as > global time. So quit blaming SR/GR for having your broken IRT concepts. > > > Do you even understand the train horn analogy? > > No answer? > > >> >> >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR > >> >> >> and GR state? > >> >> > >> >> No response? > >> > >> Still no response? > > Still no response?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 04:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl4saa$vb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387006 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:14:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Fucking moron....9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycles up at the GPS location >> >represents the same amount of global time as 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles on the >> >ground. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >> >> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "global time"! >Moron denying reality is not scientific. So why do you keep denying reality? Especially at the same time you state denying reality is not scientific? Is this a form of insanity? Is this another example of the same insanity where you keep stating "Assertion is not evidence" and then you immediately make assertions? >>That is a crap IRT concept. The >> 9,192,631,774.4647 Cs cycle clock does NOT tick at a 1 second rate, >It is up at the GPS location. Gee you are stupid. Nope. Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is 9,192,631,770 transitions of a Cs-133 atom. 9,192,631,774.4647 is not equal to 9,192,631,770! An observer riding along with the GPS satellite with a normal Cs clock ticking at once per 9,192,631,770 cycles (by DEFINITION one second) will see the satellite's specialized clock, which ticks once per 9,192,631,774.4647 cycles, as running slow. Do you not understand the train horn analogy? Tell me: The train's horn, having been tuned flat so that it will be heard as being Middle C when approaching the station, will be heard by the engineer as: 1) Middle C 2) Flat (B flat in my example) 3) Something else (and if so, why?) >> >> >> >> Once again, why do you continue to refuse to read and understand what SR >> >> >> >> and GR state? >> >> >> >> >> >> No response? >> >> >> >> Still no response? >> >> Still no response? Still no response? (Free hint: If you learned SR & GR, you wouldn't keep making stupid mistakes such as "the redefined GPS second" and "global time")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21189c63-bdf0-4d93-8987-37a0f35b0785@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387014 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 06:42:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > > Nope. Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is 9,192,631,770 transitions > of a Cs-133 atom. 9,192,631,774.4647 is not equal to 9,192,631,770! And this is the root of all the moronic lies of The Shit and its minions. Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is different: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second and your bunch of idiots is simply not important enough to change it. Of course, you can keep fooling yourself trying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlbr1u$1jn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387017 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> Nope. Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is 9,192,631,770 transitions >> of a Cs-133 atom. 9,192,631,774.4647 is not equal to 9,192,631,770! >And this is the root of all the moronic lies of The >Shit and its minions. >Once again, the DEFINITION of a second is different: As I said earlier in the thread, the definition I gave is the PHYSICS definition of the second, which is what scientists and engineers use when studying science and designing technical things. >http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second Those definitions are non-science definitions, including the non-scientific time usage. As you should know, science often has very specific definitions for many terms that ordinary users of English have less specific or unrelated definitions. >and your bunch of idiots is simply not important enough >to change it. >Of course, you can keep fooling yourself trying. The idiots I laugh at are the ones who obsessively rant how relativity is wrong, typing their rants on a computer that couldn't work without relativity, then find their way back to the asylum with a GPS that couldn't work without relativity.... Poor fools... might as well rant that water can't possibly be wet while taking a shower.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web