Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389108 > unrolled thread

Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

Started by	Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
First post	2016-08-03 11:07 -0700
Last post	2016-08-14 13:05 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 97 — 18 participants

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →

#390001

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-14 16:29 -0700
Message-ID	<047e8842-aa5c-422b-93ed-7f132828e8b2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389986

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:09:10 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 15/08/16 00:14, rotchm wrote:

> > Nope! See, you cant even do a *very simple* physics problem. You have three MAJOR errors in your sentence.
> 
> It is a direct copy of your own.

No it is not. So you claim that A & B are two identical symbols, or that a car is the same as a person. No wonder you failed your highschool math and you failed in life. You are deeply confused.

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

#390077

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-16 05:32 +1000
Message-ID	<not5bt$16fu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#390001

On 15/08/16 09:29, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:09:10 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc.
> wrote:
>> On 15/08/16 00:14, rotchm wrote:
>
>>> Nope! See, you cant even do a *very simple* physics problem. You
>>> have three MAJOR errors in your sentence.
>>
>> It is a direct copy of your own.
>
> No it is not. So you claim that A & B are two identical symbols, or
> that a car is the same as a person. No wonder you failed your
> highschool math and you failed in life. You are deeply confused.

Gawd! you have been defending what you call 'relativity' for years and 
you still don't even understand what it means. You are basically just a 
very ordinary, old fashioned aetherist.

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

#389956

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-08-14 00:23 +0000
Message-ID	<noodmg$d2j$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#389940

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
>>>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
>>>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
>>
>>> Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
>>> clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
>>> In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
>>> interval of time.
>>
>> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
>> car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
>> stationary clock.

>Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT 
>becomes the 'traveling twin' and IT will see less elapsed time than the 
>car clock.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is the traveling twin problem, Ralph. Ralph
Rabbidge, in the real world the two clocks are synchronized together,
Ralph, then one is driven off in a car, Ralph Rabbidge, but then the car
has to turn around and come back (or drive a circuitous route, same thing,
Ralph) and then return to the stationary clock where they are compared,
Ralph Rabbidge.  Ralph, it is true that the moving clock would see the
stationary clock as running slow as long as it is moving in a straight
line, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, the turn(s) change all that, Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge.  Ralph, upon return, Ralph Rabbidge, both clocks agree that the
moving clock ran slow, Ralph Rabbidge.

>Note, acceleration does not appear in your transforms.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the accelerations of the turnaround makes all the
difference in the world, Ralph Rabbidge.  Without any turns (acceleration)
the clocks can be synchronized at the beginning of the trip, Ralph, or
compared at the end, Ralph, but not both, Ralph, since the two clocks can
meet exactly once at the most, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>

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

#389972

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-14 20:12 +1000
Message-ID	<nopg5r$1l7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389956

On 14/08/16 10:23, Michael Moron-y wrote:
...a lot of garbage that only serves to support the view that Einstein's 
theory is a load of bullshit from start to finish.

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

#390000

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-08-14 23:13 +0000
Message-ID	<noqtu1$4sb$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#389972

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 14/08/16 10:23, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>...a lot of garbage that only serves to support the view that Einstein's 
>theory is a load of bullshit from start to finish.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I see you have no answer to my reply, Ralph.  
Ralph, I guess this means you must agree with my post, Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge.  And once again, Ralph, if you don't want me to continue
blabbering your name (which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) all over this
newsgroup, Ralph, you need to learn not to tinker with my posts, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge.

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

#389990

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-08-14 12:43 -0700
Message-ID	<57B0C9FA.3FC3@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#389956

Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
> 
> >On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> >>>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> >>>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> >>
> >>> Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
> >>> clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
> >>> In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
> >>> interval of time.
> >>
> >> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
> >> car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
> >> stationary clock.
> 
> >Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT
> >becomes the 'traveling twin' and IT will see less elapsed time than the
> >car clock.
> 
> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is the traveling twin problem, Ralph. Ralph
> Rabbidge, in the real world the two clocks are synchronized together,
> Ralph, then one is driven off in a car, Ralph Rabbidge, but then the car
> has to turn around and come back (or drive a circuitous route, same thing,
> Ralph) and then return to the stationary clock where they are compared,
> Ralph Rabbidge.  Ralph, it is true that the moving clock would see the
> stationary clock as running slow as long as it is moving in a straight
> line, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, the turn(s) change all that, Ralph Malcolm
> Rabbidge.  Ralph, upon return, Ralph Rabbidge, both clocks agree that the
> moving clock ran slow, Ralph Rabbidge.



When does the moving clock run slow?


What is the duration of the test?


Or, you got two clocks synchronized together

it's March 3rd, 9pm Tuesday, year 2020  

and they are off!

When does the race end to look at the results?


When does the moving clock run slow? one minute after, 2 minutes later,
a week, a month? a year??




When does the moving clock run slow?

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

#390078

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-16 05:35 +1000
Message-ID	<not5hm$16fu$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389990

On 15/08/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:

>
>
> When does the moving clock run slow?
>
>
> What is the duration of the test?
>
>
> Or, you got two clocks synchronized together
>
> it's March 3rd, 9pm Tuesday, year 2020
>
> and they are off!
>
> When does the race end to look at the results?
>
>
> When does the moving clock run slow? one minute after, 2 minutes later,
> a week, a month? a year??
>
>
>
>
> When does the moving clock run slow?

Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they 
both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....

  :)

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

#390123

From	astrofoton@interia.pl
Date	2016-08-16 11:24 -0700
Message-ID	<20412d58-1cbb-4f2a-a136-244577902a0c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390078

W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 21:35:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. 
> 
> Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they 
> both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....

Oh! Your stupidity is very great...
The Doppler shift is equal, but not the times...

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

#390154

From	"HGW." <hw@....>
Date	2016-08-17 08:51 +1000
Message-ID	<np05d8$1b0e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#390123

On 17/08/16 04:24, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 21:35:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc.
>>
>> Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they
>> both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....
>
> Oh! Your stupidity is very great...
> The Doppler shift is equal, but not the times...

This has nothing to do with Doppler shift. The rates are both supposed 
to be slow in the other's frame...and by the same amounts.....How stupid 
it is that?

It would not make the clocks read differently when reunited?

--

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

#390987

From	astrofoton@interia.pl
Date	2016-08-26 08:36 -0700
Message-ID	<5c210b02-ab1a-4e12-9c01-f7da67a3fe2e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390154

W dniu środa, 17 sierpnia 2016 00:51:24 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW. napisał:
> On 17/08/16 04:24, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 21:35:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc.
> >>
> >> Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they
> >> both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....
> >
> > Oh! Your stupidity is very great...
> > The Doppler shift is equal, but not the times...
> 
> This has nothing to do with Doppler shift. The rates are both supposed 
> to be slow in the other's frame...and by the same amounts.....How stupid 
> it is that?

Just that is stupid:
the Doppler symmetry doesn't imply a time symmetry.

t = inv, by definition, due to the practical consequences:
you must use the same time standard in the whole world.
 
> It would not make the clocks read differently when reunited?

The measured time over a loop deppends on the speed:
(x+v)^2 + (x-v)^2 > (x+0)^2 + (x-0)^2,
for v <> 0.

This explains why a moving clock slows down more than a starionary one.

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

#390205

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-08-17 11:49 -0700
Message-ID	<57B4B1AA.1419@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#389990

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
> >
> > >On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> > >>>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> > >>>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> > >>
> > >>> Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
> > >>> clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
> > >>> In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
> > >>> interval of time.
> > >>
> > >> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
> > >> car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
> > >> stationary clock.
> >
> > >Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT
> > >becomes the 'traveling twin' and IT will see less elapsed time than the
> > >car clock.
> >
> > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is the traveling twin problem, Ralph. Ralph
> > Rabbidge, in the real world the two clocks are synchronized together,
> > Ralph, then one is driven off in a car, Ralph Rabbidge, but then the car
> > has to turn around and come back (or drive a circuitous route, same thing,
> > Ralph) and then return to the stationary clock where they are compared,
> > Ralph Rabbidge.  Ralph, it is true that the moving clock would see the
> > stationary clock as running slow as long as it is moving in a straight
> > line, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, the turn(s) change all that, Ralph Malcolm
> > Rabbidge.  Ralph, upon return, Ralph Rabbidge, both clocks agree that the
> > moving clock ran slow, Ralph Rabbidge.
> 
> When does the moving clock run slow?
> 
> What is the duration of the test?
> 
> Or, you got two clocks synchronized together
> 
> it's March 3rd, 9pm Tuesday, year 2020
> 
> and they are off!
> 
> When does the race end to look at the results?
> 
> When does the moving clock run slow? one minute after, 2 minutes later,
> a week, a month? a year??
> 
> When does the moving clock run slow?



and another thing...
when they use twins instead of clocks..
which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?

What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe Time clock, is that correct??

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

#390209

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-17 14:15 -0700
Message-ID	<74ae4e90-0a5c-47c1-8b72-4c436688f6c9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390205

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:48:57 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> and another thing...
> when they use twins instead of clocks..
> which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?
> 
> What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe
> Time clock, is that correct??

Nope, both are based on the same underlying quantum process.

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

#390222

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-08-17 21:54 -0700
Message-ID	<57B53F7E.1A95@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#390209

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:48:57 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > and another thing...
> > when they use twins instead of clocks..
> > which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?
> >
> > What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe
> > Time clock, is that correct??
> 
> Nope, both are based on the same underlying quantum process.


i didn't know about quantum time...


are you saying there are biological quantum  clocks or quantum time?

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

#390247

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-18 02:58 -0700
Message-ID	<397a09ff-3c03-422b-b857-f674e3d1fce1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390222

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:53:30 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:48:57 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > and another thing...
> > > when they use twins instead of clocks..
> > > which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?
> > >
> > > What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe
> > > Time clock, is that correct??
> > 
> > Nope, both are based on the same underlying quantum process.
> 
> 
> i didn't know about quantum time...
> 
> 
> are you saying there are biological quantum  clocks or quantum time?

I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
simpler and therefore easier to construct.

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

#390248

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-08-18 03:10 -0700
Message-ID	<9b1fcb8f-e12b-4e80-9b07-c845d02d0312@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390247

W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> simpler and therefore easier to construct.

A moron likes it to be nice and simple.
They also don't work - as we can see at GPS. But
why would a moron care?

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

#390252

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-18 03:54 -0700
Message-ID	<e45d8d6a-013d-4819-886d-088d22646236@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390248

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:10:19 AM UTC-6, an idiot wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> 
> > I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> > complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> > simpler and therefore easier to construct.
> 
> A moron likes it to be nice and simple.

Not so.  You are simple and you are a moron, but you are NOT nice.

> They also don't work

True, they are on welfare.

> - as we can see at GPS.

I didn't know anyone was on board the GPS birds, not even morons like you.

> But why would a moron care?

Yes, I have wondered why you post your babblings here.  You are obviously
a nihilist moron.

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

#390254

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-08-18 04:07 -0700
Message-ID	<2370c7f1-f255-4e6c-905b-e6313dc544a9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390252

W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 12:54:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:10:19 AM UTC-6, an idiot wrote:
> >
> > W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > 
> > > I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> > > complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> > > simpler and therefore easier to construct.
> > 
> > A moron likes it to be nice and simple.
> 
> Not so.  You are simple and you are a moron, but you are NOT nice.

And how "I'm not nice" denies "moron likes it 
to be nice and simple"?

> 
> > They also don't work
> 
> True, they are on welfare.

What an idiot. Clocks on welfare? 
They simply don't work.
Your bunch of idiots is trying to force
unusable clocks as standard.

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

#390259

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-18 05:19 -0700
Message-ID	<163e7673-fef4-475d-ab04-7802a021647f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390254

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:07:41 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 12:54:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:10:19 AM UTC-6, an idiot wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > > 
> > > A moron likes it to be nice and simple.
> > 
> > Not so.  You are simple and you are a moron, but you are NOT nice.
> 
> And how "I'm not nice" denies "moron likes it 
> to be nice and simple"?

Because you're not nice. Duh!

> > > They also don't work
> > 
> > True, they are on welfare.
> 
> What an idiot. Clocks on welfare?

No, moron:  morons are on welfare.
 
> They simply don't work.
> Your bunch of idiots is trying to force
> unusable clocks as standard.

And morons like you babble about things they don't understand.

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

#390260

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-08-18 05:22 -0700
Message-ID	<f16c6755-abda-415a-945a-f2ae07a68b0b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390259

W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 14:19:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 

> > They simply don't work.
> > Your bunch of idiots is trying to force
> > unusable clocks as standard.
> 
> And morons like you babble about things they don't understand.

And fanatic idiots yell and wave arms.

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

#390276

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-08-18 10:09 -0700
Message-ID	<57B5EBD4.2F62@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#390247

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:53:30 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:48:57 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > and another thing...
> > > > when they use twins instead of clocks..
> > > > which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?
> > > >
> > > > What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe
> > > > Time clock, is that correct??
> > >
> > > Nope, both are based on the same underlying quantum process.
> >
> >
> > i didn't know about quantum time...
> >
> >
> > are you saying there are biological quantum  clocks or quantum time?
> 
> I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> simpler and therefore easier to construct.


How about a Master Clock, you know...a master clock based on the whole
universe time, a spacetime clock if you will? What would that be made
of?? Would it be
tiny or big...

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →

csiph-web

Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

Contents

#390001

#390077

#389956

#389972

#390000

#389990

#390078

#390123

#390154

#390987

#390205

#390209

#390222

#390247

#390248

#390252

#390254

#390259

#390260

#390276