Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #454951 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-06 09:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 21:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:30 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 14:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 18:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 06:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ovské Bezvýjimeènì <obe@cwkawns.na> - 2018-04-07 17:42 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 08:50 -0700
Re:Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:40 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:52 +0200
Re:Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ovské Bezvýjimeènì <obe@cwkawns.na> - 2018-04-06 18:47 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-06 14:43 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-06 22:37 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 15:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 12:24 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-07 12:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 16:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 06:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 06:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 06:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 04:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 16:42 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-18 05:41 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 18:37 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-19 07:55 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:49 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 05:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 06:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 07:11 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:17 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 20:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 07:02 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 08:09 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-21 18:37 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 12:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 21:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 05:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 06:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 08:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 08:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates, Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 18:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-20 11:45 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-21 10:27 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 06:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-22 10:35 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-22 08:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-22 15:35 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-23 13:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 08:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 12:27 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-23 16:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 21:20 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 07:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-23 20:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 07:19 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 10:57 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 09:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-24 13:30 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-20 20:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 05:52 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 06:59 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:03 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-24 13:29 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 00:47 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:18 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-25 11:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:59 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:33 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:01 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 07:04 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-26 16:36 +0200
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 09:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:49 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-26 10:28 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-26 16:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 01:04 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 09:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 05:32 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-29 14:01 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 11:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:34 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:53 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 21:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:30 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 05:31 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:02 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:22 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-28 08:59 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 19:19 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 11:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-30 19:20 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 10:55 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 12:30 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 14:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-30 21:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 10:57 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 11:11 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:25 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-02 15:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:08 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 05:47 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:41 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-08 09:38 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 18:41 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:23 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 19:19 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 21:27 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 14:45 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 14:04 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-13 20:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-13 20:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 00:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 03:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 16:58 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 17:41 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 18:05 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 11:44 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 11:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 19:25 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:34 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 19:41 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 20:48 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-14 21:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:37 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:20 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 07:48 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 04:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:45 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 12:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:00 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 08:11 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:07 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:01 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:58 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-29 05:40 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-29 14:12 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 08:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 18:51 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-30 06:14 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 19:14 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 14:40 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 20:23 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-30 16:57 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 23:04 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:24 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 02:40 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-08 10:19 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:30 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 13:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-09 21:05 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-09 21:07 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:35 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:25 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 12:50 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 04:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:54 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 07:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-01 08:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 09:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:55 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 14:49 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 11:50 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 20:34 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 13:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 02:15 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-01 19:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:24 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-02 05:22 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 14:50 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:28 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-02 12:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-01 21:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-01 09:56 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:52 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 05:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-02 07:46 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 17:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 11:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 12:40 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 05:56 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:16 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 05:16 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-06 00:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:34 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 05:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 11:07 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 13:43 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-09 17:29 -0400
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 15:53 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-09 11:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 18:57 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:20 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:55 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 06:29 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-10 10:16 -0500
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:27 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-11 04:51 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 14:40 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 05:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:56 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 08:38 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-09 18:08 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-10 04:44 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 07:49 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:20 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-12 06:31 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 05:27 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 08:08 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-19 20:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-20 07:50 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 23:41 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:01 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 22:26 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:21 +0100
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 15:21 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 15:36 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:48 -0700
Re: Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:31 -0700
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdcoq7$6vd$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457899 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 14/05/2018 18:41, Michael Moroney wrote: >> The nymshifting troll, trolling as Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> trolled: >> >>> Rave and spit, moren, what can you do. GPS doesn't need that accuracy, nor >>> synchronous clocks, nor relativity corrections. GLONASS works with no >>> relativity corrections aT all. >I don't doubt you are right Ursula. All satellite navigation systems >employ a feedback mechanism, so that if the measured coordinates of, for >example, Greenwich observatory are measured as anything other than where >it where it is known to be, they simply adjust the clocks to bring the >measure coordinates back to what they should be eh! >> Wrong. GLONASS has a different correction value from being in a different orbit >> but it is still necessary. >> >> GLONASS transmits at 4.99999999782 MHz and the signal is received on the ground >> at 5.0 MHz. >Bull shit. As the satellite is approaching the signal will be Doppler >shifted to a higher frequency. As the satellite is receding the signal >will be Doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and somewhere roughly >overhead, the received signal must be exactly the same as that >transmitted eh! The Doppler shift is in addition to the received 5 MHz signal. As the satellite approaches, the signal is received at a higher frequency, as it recedes it's at a lower frequency. This is well known and built into the receiver design. This is no different than the US GPS system, except the received frequency is centered at 10.23 MHz, and the time dilation effect amount is different due to a different orbit. And yes, there will be a position/angle where the satellite is slightly receding, just enough to cancel the GR 4.99999999782-->5.0 MHz effect, so Doppler will shift it back down slightly to 4.99999999782 MHz. And the point of that was...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mamKC.14884$463.13117@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #457904 |
On 14/05/2018 20:41, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 14/05/2018 18:41, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> The nymshifting troll, trolling as Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> trolled: >>> >>>> Rave and spit, moren, what can you do. GPS doesn't need that accuracy, nor >>>> synchronous clocks, nor relativity corrections. GLONASS works with no >>>> relativity corrections aT all. > >> I don't doubt you are right Ursula. All satellite navigation systems >> employ a feedback mechanism, so that if the measured coordinates of, for >> example, Greenwich observatory are measured as anything other than where >> it where it is known to be, they simply adjust the clocks to bring the >> measure coordinates back to what they should be eh! >>> Wrong. GLONASS has a different correction value from being in a different orbit >>> but it is still necessary. >>> >>> GLONASS transmits at 4.99999999782 MHz and the signal is received on the ground >>> at 5.0 MHz. > >> Bull shit.ha As the satellite is approaching the signal will be Doppler >> shifted to a higher frequency. As the satellite is receding the signal >> will be Doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and somewhere roughly >> overhead, the received signal must be exactly the same as that >> transmitted eh! > > The Doppler shift is in addition to the received 5 MHz signal. As the satellite > approaches, the signal is received at a higher frequency, as it recedes it's > at a lower frequency. This is well known and built into the receiver design. > This is no different than the US GPS system, except the received frequency is > centered at 10.23 MHz, and the time dilation effect amount is different due > to a different orbit. > > And yes, there will be a position/angle where the satellite is slightly > receding, just enough to cancel the GR 4.99999999782-->5.0 MHz effect, > so Doppler will shift it back down slightly to 4.99999999782 MHz. > > And the point of that was...? The point is that relativists ASSUME that part of the measured frequency Shift is a real change in frequency, There can be nothing in those measurements that prove that is in fact the case.. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdcsnp$9f9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457908 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 14/05/2018 20:41, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Bull shit.ha As the satellite is approaching the signal will be Doppler >>> shifted to a higher frequency. As the satellite is receding the signal >>> will be Doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and somewhere roughly >>> overhead, the received signal must be exactly the same as that >>> transmitted eh! >> >> The Doppler shift is in addition to the received 5 MHz signal. As the satellite >> approaches, the signal is received at a higher frequency, as it recedes it's >> at a lower frequency. This is well known and built into the receiver design. >> This is no different than the US GPS system, except the received frequency is >> centered at 10.23 MHz, and the time dilation effect amount is different due >> to a different orbit. >> >> And yes, there will be a position/angle where the satellite is slightly >> receding, just enough to cancel the GR 4.99999999782-->5.0 MHz effect, >> so Doppler will shift it back down slightly to 4.99999999782 MHz. >> >> And the point of that was...? >The point is that relativists ASSUME that part of the measured frequency >Shift is a real change in frequency, There can be nothing in those >measurements that prove that is in fact the case.. The shift has been measured. The frequency shift is real. GPS works. GLONASS works. The very first GPS satellite had a switch in it to turn on or off the GR clock compensation. Apparently NASA/the military/whoever ran the GPS program at the time had some noisy anti-GR nut involved. The switch was a compromise. The satellite initially ran with GR compensation disabled. When they saw how fast the error was accumulating, and at the exact same rate that GR predicted, they turned GR compensation on, never turned it off again, and never looked back. Every GPS satellite launched since then had no such switch, GR compensation was always on. So measuring the error from the first GPS satellite verified the need for GR compensation for every GPS satelllite since then. Someone mentioned in here how fast a redwood tree with a GPS receiver nailed to it would (seem to) run off if GR was real but the GPS system didn't compensate for it (or the opposite; if GR wasn't real but the GPS had compensation for GR).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a03c926b-91c5-410b-8ead-37ad0801d284@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457917 |
On Monday, 14 May 2018 22:48:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > The shift has been measured. The frequency shift is real. Too bad that your moronic Shit assumes constant frequency. > GPS works. > GLONASS works. And completely idiotic concept of "proper" desynchronizing clocks doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 15:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e7321c2-0665-4c03-a476-1ba12882a5e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457908 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:18:28 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > On 14/05/2018 20:41, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On 14/05/2018 18:41, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> The nymshifting troll, trolling as Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> trolled: > >>> > >>>> Rave and spit, moren, what can you do. GPS doesn't need that accuracy, nor > >>>> synchronous clocks, nor relativity corrections. GLONASS works with no > >>>> relativity corrections aT all. > > > >> I don't doubt you are right Ursula. All satellite navigation systems > >> employ a feedback mechanism, so that if the measured coordinates of, for > >> example, Greenwich observatory are measured as anything other than where > >> it where it is known to be, they simply adjust the clocks to bring the > >> measure coordinates back to what they should be eh! > > >>> Wrong. GLONASS has a different correction value from being in a different orbit > >>> but it is still necessary. > >>> > >>> GLONASS transmits at 4.99999999782 MHz and the signal is received on the ground > >>> at 5.0 MHz. > > > >> Bull shit.ha As the satellite is approaching the signal will be Doppler > >> shifted to a higher frequency. As the satellite is receding the signal > >> will be Doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and somewhere roughly > >> overhead, the received signal must be exactly the same as that > >> transmitted eh! > > > > The Doppler shift is in addition to the received 5 MHz signal. As the satellite > > approaches, the signal is received at a higher frequency, as it recedes it's > > at a lower frequency. This is well known and built into the receiver design. > > This is no different than the US GPS system, except the received frequency is > > centered at 10.23 MHz, and the time dilation effect amount is different due > > to a different orbit. > > > > And yes, there will be a position/angle where the satellite is slightly > > receding, just enough to cancel the GR 4.99999999782-->5.0 MHz effect, > > so Doppler will shift it back down slightly to 4.99999999782 MHz. > > > > And the point of that was...? > > The point is that relativists ASSUME that part of the measured frequency > Shift is a real change in frequency, There can be nothing in those > measurements that prove that is in fact the case.. > > keith stein But in other experiments involving particles moving close to the speed of light, it's easy to separate out the normal Doppler effect v/c from the relativistic one, which is v/c*gamma. The easy way to do this, of course, is to note that "v" in the classical Doppler equation is the relative velocity (velocity component longitudinally) directly toward, or away, from you. What happens if the thing is moving at 90 degrees? In classical physics, it's Doppler shift goes to zero. In relativity it still has a slow clock by 1/gamma, so it emits signals shifted by 1/gamma. That is entirely a relativistic effect not predicted by Doppler. It is called, the Transverse Relativistic Doppler Effect. It has been measure in the lab, under conditions where a transverse fast particle is moving at exactly 90 degrees. Result? Einstein's 1/gamma shift. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation Read the literature, Keith Stein. You're looking very foolish now. You know that, eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rozKC.216045$jZ.184032@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #457935 |
On 14/05/2018 23:37, Steve BH wrote: > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:18:28 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 20:41, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 18:41, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> The nymshifting troll, trolling as Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> trolled: >>>>> >>>>>> Rave and spit, moren, what can you do. GPS doesn't need that accuracy, nor >>>>>> synchronous clocks, nor relativity corrections. GLONASS works with no >>>>>> relativity corrections aT all. >>> >>>> I don't doubt you are right Ursula. All satellite navigation systems >>>> employ a feedback mechanism, so that if the measured coordinates of, for >>>> example, Greenwich observatory are measured as anything other than where >>>> it where it is known to be, they simply adjust the clocks to bring the >>>> measure coordinates back to what they should be eh! >> >>>>> Wrong. GLONASS has a different correction value from being in a different orbit >>>>> but it is still necessary. >>>>> >>>>> GLONASS transmits at 4.99999999782 MHz and the signal is received on the ground >>>>> at 5.0 MHz. >>> >>>> Bull shit.ha As the satellite is approaching the signal will be Doppler >>>> shifted to a higher frequency. As the satellite is receding the signal >>>> will be Doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and somewhere roughly >>>> overhead, the received signal must be exactly the same as that >>>> transmitted eh! >>> >>> The Doppler shift is in addition to the received 5 MHz signal. As the satellite >>> approaches, the signal is received at a higher frequency, as it recedes it's >>> at a lower frequency. This is well known and built into the receiver design. >>> This is no different than the US GPS system, except the received frequency is >>> centered at 10.23 MHz, and the time dilation effect amount is different due >>> to a different orbit. >>> >>> And yes, there will be a position/angle where the satellite is slightly >>> receding, just enough to cancel the GR 4.99999999782-->5.0 MHz effect, >>> so Doppler will shift it back down slightly to 4.99999999782 MHz. >>> >>> And the point of that was...? >> >> The point is that relativists ASSUME that part of the measured frequency >> Shift is a real change in frequency, There can be nothing in those >> measurements that prove that is in fact the case.. >> >> keith stein > > > But in other experiments involving particles moving close to the speed of light, it's easy to separate out the normal Doppler effect v/c from the relativistic one, which is v/c*gamma. > > The easy way to do this, of course, is to note that "v" in the classical Doppler equation is the relative velocity (velocity component longitudinally) directly toward, or away, from you. What happens if the thing is moving at 90 degrees? It can only be moving at 90 degrees for an instant of time. If it emits a pulse at that instant then the next pulse clearly has further to travel, and i don't doubt this accounts for what relativists call "the Transverse Doppler Effect". In classical physics, it's Doppler shift goes to zero. In relativity it still has a slow clock by 1/gamma, so it emits signals shifted by 1/gamma. That is entirely a relativistic effect not predicted by Doppler. It is called, the Transverse Relativistic Doppler Effect. > > It has been measure in the lab, under conditions where a transverse fast particle is moving at exactly 90 degrees. Result? Einstein's 1/gamma shift. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation > > Read the literature, Keith Stein. You're looking very foolish now. You know that, eh? No. I still don't doubt that when eventually someone takes a couple of clocks to the ISS on separate flights, it will be relativists who look very foolish eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64d90157-9403-49fe-92f1-5fd024ee58ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457899 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 12:14:54 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > On 14/05/2018 18:41, Michael Moroney wrote: > > The nymshifting troll, trolling as Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> trolled: > > > >> Rave and spit, moren, what can you do. GPS doesn't need that accuracy, nor > >> synchronous clocks, nor relativity corrections. GLONASS works with no > >> relativity corrections aT all. > > I don't doubt you are right Ursula. All satellite navigation systems > employ a feedback mechanism, so that if the measured coordinates of, for > example, Greenwich observatory are measured as anything other than where > it where it is known to be, they simply adjust the clocks to bring the > measure coordinates back to what they should be eh! > > > Wrong. GLONASS has a different correction value from being in a different orbit > > but it is still necessary. > > > > GLONASS transmits at 4.99999999782 MHz and the signal is received on the ground > > at 5.0 MHz. > > Bull shit. As the satellite is approaching the signal will be Doppler > shifted to a higher frequency. As the satellite is receding the signal > will be Doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and somewhere roughly > overhead, the received signal must be exactly the same as that > transmitted eh! > > keith stein Save for the gravitational red shift. Which is an experimental fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8jaKC.12175$3a1.1043@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #457862 |
On 13/05/2018 23:07, Steve BH wrote: > What’s the point of a microsecond = 1000 ns? If the caliladed and observed effect of going up a mountain is 18 ns a day and your 6 atomic clocks are accurate an stand to 2 ns a day, then you only have to be up the mountain a day before your signal is 9 times your error. That’s enough. > > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/ > > No point in staying up there two months just to please YOU. You’d just pick some other arbitrary goal. The post you are replying to Steve started with the following: A.EINSTEIN (1905) wrote: >> "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve >> with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting >> t seconds,then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled >> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" It is this claim of Einstein that i do not believe, and the experiment you refer to does absolutely nothing to confirm it. If it is true then clocks on the ISS will be losing 24,600 ns per day, which is a great deal more than the 18 ns/day you are claiming was measured, and in the opposite direction too. The fact that over 100 years after Einstein made the above claim the best proof you have to offer is the one you came up the mountain with makes me convinced that i am indeed correct in thinking that the famous SR twin effect is indeed BULL SHIT. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f290596d-58e6-4e40-bcf1-1867e99e0056@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457869 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 13/05/2018 23:07, Steve BH wrote: > > > > What’s the point of a microsecond = 1000 ns? If the caliladed and > > observed effect of going up a mountain is 18 ns a day and your 6 > > atomic clocks are accurate an stand to 2 ns a day, then you only > > have to be up the mountain a day before your signal is 9 times your > > error. That’s enough. > > > > http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/ > > > > No point in staying up there two months just to please YOU. You’d just > > pick some other arbitrary goal. > > The post you are replying to Steve started with the following: > > A.EINSTEIN (1905) wrote: > >> "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve > >> with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting > >> t seconds,then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled > >> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" > > It is this claim of Einstein that i do not believe, and the experiment > you refer to does absolutely nothing to confirm it. Neither would the experiment that YOU propose. Einstein's calculation referred to clocks at the same gravitational potential whereas the ISS is about 400 km higher. Didn't you get the memo? > If it is true then clocks on the ISS will be losing 24,600 ns per day, Invalid number since your number didn't use the correct equation: you MUST use GR, not SR. > which is a great deal more than the 18 ns/day you are claiming was > measured, and in > the opposite direction too. The fact that over 100 years after Einstein > made the above claim the best proof you have to offer is the one you > came up the mountain with makes me convinced that i am indeed correct in > thinking that the famous SR twin effect is indeed BULL SHIT. > > keith stein Using the wrong theory is indeed BULL SHIT. It's GIGO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0HlKC.119819$9t.110404@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #457876 |
On 14/05/2018 12:07, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: >> A.EINSTEIN (1905) wrote: >> >> "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve >> >> with a constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting >> >> t seconds,then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled >> >> clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)(tv^2/c^2) seconds slow" >> >> It is this claim of Einstein that i do not believe, and the experiment >> you refer to does absolutely nothing to confirm it. > > Neither would the experiment that YOU propose. Einstein's calculation > referred to clocks at the same gravitational potential whereas the ISS > is about 400 km higher. Didn't you get the memo? > >> If it is true then clocks on the ISS will be losing 24,600 ns per day, > > Invalid number since your number didn't use the correct equation: you MUST > use GR, not SR. Actually you need to use both, but of course i've done that eh! >> which is a great deal more than the 18 ns/day you are claiming was >> measured, and in >> the opposite direction too. The fact that over 100 years after Einstein >> made the above claim the best proof you have to offer is the one you >> came up the mountain with makes me convinced that i am indeed correct in >> thinking that the famous SR twin effect is indeed BULL SHIT. >> >> keith stein > > Using the wrong theory is indeed BULL SHIT. It's GIGO. Here is the theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation And here are the relativistic predictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daily_satellite_time_dilation.png And for the ISS they are exactly what i said above eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3076f94-fc46-447c-a44e-cafba90a7f6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457869 |
There are s variety of experiments where stocks clocks are moved, starting with Halafe-Keating, where both gravity and motion effects must be calculated per Einstein to get the actual results. Since the motion artifacts are as large as the gravitational ones, and vary in size and sign, they can be split out. Einstein is right. Does your argument really come down to the idea that while these things slow Twin Paradox Effects of as much as serval hundred ns per experiment, none had been. done to show as much as 1000 ns, so therefore Einstein is wrong? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Twin_paradox
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e9bbf0d-1e00-4054-9a2e-adbd305afa31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457757 |
What’s the point of a microsecond = 1000 ns? If the calculated and observed effect of going up a mountain is 18 ns a day and your 6 atomic clocks are accurate an stable to 2 ns a day, then you only have to be up the mountain ONE day before your signal is 9 times your error. That’s enough. http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/ No point in staying up there two months just to please YOU. You’d just pick some other arbitrary goal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 11:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pcse3b$ca6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457514 |
On 5/5/2018 4:41 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 02/05/2018 23:35, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 4/29/18 10:25 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 29/04/2018 17:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> [... two experiments sending atomic clocks into low earth orbit] >>> >>> They have no intention of doing an SR twins type experiment, >>> where stationary(relative to each other) and adjacent clocks are >>> compared. >> >> Yes. THEY DON'T NEED TO. >> Consider this thought experiment: >> >> Clocks A and B are synchronized on earth's geoid to GPS time. Clock A >> is then launched to low earth orbit (LEO) and is compared to GPS time: >> suppose it experienced a change DT relative to GPS time. Now wait a >> year, during which time clock A will lose 20 us/day relative to GPS >> time, or 7.3 milliseconds, so clock A will be DT-7.3 ms relative to >> GPS time, and clock B will remain in sync with GPS time. So comparing >> the two clocks via EM signals, and accounting for the propagation >> delay, A will compare DT-7.3 ms behind clock B. Now launch clock B to >> LEO, in an identical manner to that used for clock A, so clock B will >> experience a change DT relative to GPS time (yes, the same value as >> clock A experienced a year earlier). So when clock B arrives in LEO >> right next to clock A, clock A will be DT-7.3 ms relative to GPS time, >> and clock B will be DT relative to GPS time. This implies that when >> the two clocks are compared directly, clock A will be 7.3 ms behind >> clock B. >> >> You claim they will compare equal. Where do you think that 7.3 ms goes? >> >> Note that 7.3 ms is enormously larger than any errors or >> clock drifts or confusions could be. >> >> Tom Roberts > > Relativists have an unfortunate way of demonstrating the truth of > relativity by means of thought experiments, while at the same time > maintaining that no thought experiment can demonstrate that SR is false. > > Whatever it is not a THOUGHT experiment, but a REAL experiment which I > am waiting to see performed Mr.Roberts, and i confess that i am to some > extent like the relativists in that no THOUGHT experiment is ever going > to convince me that Newtonian time is false. However, if you can > really demonstrate the -24.7 us/day which relativists claim for the > ISS, by means of a real experiment comparing stationary and adjacent > clocks, then I should have to admit that no could Newton have predicted > that eh! As Tom stated, they don't need to. Even though you don't have the specific case of a Cs clock on the ISS, we do have GPS type systems in different orbits from the US GPS systems. Galileo, GLONASS, Beidou all are GPS-like satellites systems using satellites at different orbital heights. Since they use different orbital heights, they experience different GR time dilations and guess what? They work! The time dilations predicted by GR matches what's seen between the satellites and the ground. Right there there are 4 data points for 4 different GPS systems. Plus others I don't know of. What use is a fifth data point from a clock aboard the ISS?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FEaKC.12176$3a1.446@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #457674 |
On 08/05/2018 16:00, Volney wrote: > On 5/5/2018 4:41 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 02/05/2018 23:35, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 4/29/18 10:25 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 29/04/2018 17:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> [... two experiments sending atomic clocks into low earth orbit] >>>> >>>> They have no intention of doing an SR twins type experiment, >>>> where stationary(relative to each other) and adjacent clocks are >>>> compared. >>> >>> Yes. THEY DON'T NEED TO. >>> Consider this thought experiment: >>> >>> Clocks A and B are synchronized on earth's geoid to GPS time. Clock A >>> is then launched to low earth orbit (LEO) and is compared to GPS >>> time: suppose it experienced a change DT relative to GPS time. Now >>> wait a year, during which time clock A will lose 20 us/day relative >>> to GPS time, or 7.3 milliseconds, so clock A will be DT-7.3 ms >>> relative to GPS time, and clock B will remain in sync with GPS time. >>> So comparing the two clocks via EM signals, and accounting for the >>> propagation delay, A will compare DT-7.3 ms behind clock B. Now >>> launch clock B to LEO, in an identical manner to that used for clock >>> A, so clock B will experience a change DT relative to GPS time (yes, >>> the same value as clock A experienced a year earlier). So when clock >>> B arrives in LEO right next to clock A, clock A will be DT-7.3 ms >>> relative to GPS time, and clock B will be DT relative to GPS time. >>> This implies that when the two clocks are compared directly, clock A >>> will be 7.3 ms behind clock B. >>> >>> You claim they will compare equal. Where do you think that 7.3 ms goes? >>> >>> Note that 7.3 ms is enormously larger than any errors or >>> clock drifts or confusions could be. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> Relativists have an unfortunate way of demonstrating the truth of >> relativity by means of thought experiments, while at the same time >> maintaining that no thought experiment can demonstrate that SR is false. >> >> Whatever it is not a THOUGHT experiment, but a REAL experiment which I >> am waiting to see performed Mr.Roberts, and i confess that i am to some >> extent like the relativists in that no THOUGHT experiment is ever going >> to convince me that Newtonian time is false. However, if you can >> really demonstrate the -24.7 us/day which relativists claim for the >> ISS, by means of a real experiment comparing stationary and adjacent >> clocks, then I should have to admit that no could Newton have predicted >> that eh! > > As Tom stated, they don't need to. Even though you don't have the > specific case of a Cs clock on the ISS, we do have GPS type systems in > different orbits from the US GPS systems. Galileo, GLONASS, Beidou all > are GPS-like satellites systems using satellites at different orbital > heights. Since they use different orbital heights, they experience > different GR time dilations and guess what? They work! The time > dilations predicted by GR matches what's seen between the satellites and > the ground. Right there there are 4 data points for 4 different GPS > systems. Plus others I don't know of. What use is a fifth data point > from a clock aboard the ISS? No way can you prove a clock on the ISS goes SLOW by pointing to a clock on another satellite which goes FAST eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0688c18d-37ec-4871-b9a3-8ad700029080@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457383 |
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > Consider this thought experiment: > > Clocks A and B are synchronized on earth's geoid to GPS time. Clock A is > then launched to low earth orbit (LEO) and is compared to GPS time: > suppose it experienced a change DT relative to GPS time. Now wait a > year, during which time clock A will lose 20 us/day relative to GPS > time, or 7.3 milliseconds, so clock A will be DT-7.3 ms relative to GPS > time, and clock B will remain in sync with GPS time. So comparing the > two clocks via EM signals, and accounting for the propagation delay, A > will compare DT-7.3 ms behind clock B. Now launch clock B to LEO, in an > identical manner to that used for clock A, so clock B will experience a > change DT relative to GPS time (yes, the same value as clock A > experienced a year earlier). So when clock B arrives in LEO right next > to clock A, clock A will be DT-7.3 ms relative to GPS time, and clock B > will be DT relative to GPS time. This implies that when the two clocks > are compared directly, clock A will be 7.3 ms behind clock B. > > You claim they will compare equal. Where do you think that 7.3 ms goes? > > Note that 7.3 ms is enormously larger than any errors or > clock drifts or confusions could be. The time measurement vehicles imposed on any of the clocks are none other than the atomic clocks which depend on the local value of the speed of light in vacuum. In any Aether theory, the speed of light varies with altitude. Thus, what you think GR predicts is very much in agreement with any Aether theory. Now, suppose you are able to find another vehicle to measure the local time rate of time. Would you measure such a difference in time as in these satellites? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 19:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab9f5154-0884-45f0-9c4f-e1738501172d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457169 |
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:25:31 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/04/2018 17:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 4/29/18 4:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> [...] > > If you would STUDY and LEARN, rather than just wasting your time posting > > nonsense to the 'net, you would know: > > > > * NASA's Deep Space Atomic Clock mission is scheduled THIS YEAR > > to launch a mercury-ion atomic clock into low earth orbit. > > This is a PROTOTYPE for an instrument to be placed into > > future planetary mission to greatly improve their accuracy of > > navigation. > > > > * the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space experiment is scheduled > > THIS YEAR to launch two atomic clocks to the ISS. > > > > Apparently 5 minutes with Google is beyond your abilities. How sad! > > > > Tom Roberts > > I seem to know rather more about this Atomic Clock Mission than you do, > Mr.Roberts. They have no intention of doing an SR twins type experiment, > where stationary(relative to each other) and adjacent clocks are > compared. They do intend comparing the ISS born clock with a ground > based clock, but since relativists do not understand the Doppler Effect, > and no one is saying the Doppler Effect does not occur, but i would say > the Doppler Effect is entirely an APPARENT change in frequency, as > opposed to relativists who claim it is in part a real change in clock > rate. That way i don't doubt they will be able to claim the experiment > conforms with the predictions of SR, but I will not be convinced unless > the SR twin effect is demonstrated comparing stationary and adjacent > clocks eh! > > keith stein Clocks on ISS, clocks stationary and adjacent. You keep changing the rule for your "experiment". Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 09:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uxdHC.147506$sc1.68286@fx09.am4> |
| In reply to | #457454 |
On 04/05/2018 03:31, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:25:31 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/04/2018 17:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 4/29/18 4:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> [...] >>> If you would STUDY and LEARN, rather than just wasting your time posting >>> nonsense to the 'net, you would know: >>> >>> * NASA's Deep Space Atomic Clock mission is scheduled THIS YEAR >>> to launch a mercury-ion atomic clock into low earth orbit. >>> This is a PROTOTYPE for an instrument to be placed into >>> future planetary mission to greatly improve their accuracy of >>> navigation. >>> >>> * the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space experiment is scheduled >>> THIS YEAR to launch two atomic clocks to the ISS. >>> >>> Apparently 5 minutes with Google is beyond your abilities. How sad! >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> I seem to know rather more about this Atomic Clock Mission than you do, >> Mr.Roberts. They have no intention of doing an SR twins type experiment, >> where stationary(relative to each other) and adjacent clocks are >> compared. They do intend comparing the ISS born clock with a ground >> based clock, but since relativists do not understand the Doppler Effect, >> and no one is saying the Doppler Effect does not occur, but i would say >> the Doppler Effect is entirely an APPARENT change in frequency, as >> opposed to relativists who claim it is in part a real change in clock >> rate. That way i don't doubt they will be able to claim the experiment >> conforms with the predictions of SR, but I will not be convinced unless >> the SR twin effect is demonstrated comparing stationary and adjacent >> clocks eh! >> >> keith stein > > Clocks on ISS, clocks stationary and adjacent. > You keep changing the rule for your "experiment". > Ed When i say "stationary and adjacent" Ed, i mean stationary and adjacent RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. I do not believe in absolutely stationary eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3f02896-5d4e-4190-aa6a-2ed406257b26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457513 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 4:01:33 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/05/2018 03:31, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:25:31 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 29/04/2018 17:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> On 4/29/18 4:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>> If you would STUDY and LEARN, rather than just wasting your time posting > >>> nonsense to the 'net, you would know: > >>> > >>> * NASA's Deep Space Atomic Clock mission is scheduled THIS YEAR > >>> to launch a mercury-ion atomic clock into low earth orbit. > >>> This is a PROTOTYPE for an instrument to be placed into > >>> future planetary mission to greatly improve their accuracy of > >>> navigation. > >>> > >>> * the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space experiment is scheduled > >>> THIS YEAR to launch two atomic clocks to the ISS. > >>> > >>> Apparently 5 minutes with Google is beyond your abilities. How sad! > >>> > >>> Tom Roberts > >> > >> I seem to know rather more about this Atomic Clock Mission than you do, > >> Mr.Roberts. They have no intention of doing an SR twins type experiment, > >> where stationary(relative to each other) and adjacent clocks are > >> compared. They do intend comparing the ISS born clock with a ground > >> based clock, but since relativists do not understand the Doppler Effect, > >> and no one is saying the Doppler Effect does not occur, but i would say > >> the Doppler Effect is entirely an APPARENT change in frequency, as > >> opposed to relativists who claim it is in part a real change in clock > >> rate. That way i don't doubt they will be able to claim the experiment > >> conforms with the predictions of SR, but I will not be convinced unless > >> the SR twin effect is demonstrated comparing stationary and adjacent > >> clocks eh! > >> > >> keith stein > > > > Clocks on ISS, clocks stationary and adjacent. > > You keep changing the rule for your "experiment". > > Ed > > When i say "stationary and adjacent" Ed, i mean > stationary and adjacent RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. > I do not believe in absolutely stationary eh! > > keith stein When will you stop talking nonsense? How can you conduct the twins experiment if the clocks are "stationary and adjacent RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER"?????????????????? As for knowing about the clock experiments (NOTE: plural) I suspect you never even bothered to go to the NASA page describing the experiments. Instead of learning what they are testing you prefer to whine about how the experiment is not done according to your criteria. Boo Hoo! ED
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66f4a7b0-2141-43cd-9a6f-6492d274c9de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457167 |
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 18:11:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/29/18 4:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > [...] > If you would STUDY and LEARN, rather than just wasting your time posting > nonsense to the 'net, you would know: That the ingenious Shit of ingenious Einstein is IINGENIOUS! And ingenious Einstein was INGENIOUS! And that whoever doesn't agree is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3865309-f199-4d46-8b66-ea7ec2dedf62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457151 |
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 5:01:31 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 28/04/2018 14:59, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 4/27/18 11:31 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> It's not what i believe that matters. What matters is what is the truth. > > > > Hmmmm. The closest we humans can get to "the truth" is experimental > > results. > > > > There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm the predictions > > of SR. And more importantly, within its domain there are none that > > refute SR. > > only because no one has flown a couple of clocks to the ISS eh! You have a real fetish for the ISS. The HK experiment has been repeated. You just need to do a little more research. > > > >> If the SR twins do not age at different rates then indeed relativity > >> is total bull shit, > > > > No. SR would be "bull shit" ONLY if its predictions did not correspond > > to actual experiments. SR predicts that the twins both age at the same > > rate, their usual rate: they get 1 second older for every 1 second of > > elapsed proper time they experience. But between meetings they > > experience different amounts of elapsed proper time. > > pedant! He is not leaving you any wiggle room for a reason. and your response is just that? Lame. > > > For timelike objects such as twins, elapsed proper time > > is the path length of their worldline in spacetime. The > > twins follow different paths between meetings, and those > > paths have different path lengths. So starting out with > > equal ages, the twins rejoin with different ages. > > So reunited clocks should register different amounts of time eh! exactly. > > > There are several experiments that reproduce the > > conditions of the twin > > paradox. The best is probably Bailey et al: > > > > Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive > > and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg > > 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979). > > > > They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When > > combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a > > highly relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored > > muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab > > every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest: Meyer et al., Physical > > Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al., JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et > > al., Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). > > You are making my point Mr.Roberts. The best you can offer is > experiments with sub atomic particles. Show the twin effect with real > macroscopic clocks (i'm not asking for real twins eh!), then i will > believe it really would happen with real twins. Right now i'm convinced > it's bull shit eh! Atomic clocks still too small for you? All you have to do is look up the HK experiment on wikipedia. "A reenactment of the original experiment by the National Physical Laboratory took place in 1996 on the 25th anniversary of the original experiment, using more precise atomic clocks during a flight from London to Washington, D.C. and back again. The results were verified to a higher degree of accuracy. A time gain of 39±2 ns was observed, compared to a relativistic prediction of 39.8 ns.[16] In June 2010, the National Physical Laboratory again repeated the experiment, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hongkong - London). The predicted value was 246±3 ns, the measured value 230±20 ns.[17]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment > > >> and if they do age at different rates then the effect would be very > >> easily demonstrated on the'sSS eh! > > > > Your focus on a single experiment is completely unwarranted. It would > > not be "very easy", and would cost tens of millions of dollars to > > demonstrate what has already been adequately demonstrated -- there are > > HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm the predictions of SR, and NONE > > within its domain that refute it. > > > How much does the oscillator in a computer cost? > Put a couple of them in a small box holding temperature and pressure > constant, and they should certainly demonstrate the claimed > 24.6 us/day, if it exists eh! > > keith stein > Ever research the accuracy of your computer's RTC? (Real Time Clock) They are not that accurate. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web