Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #474006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-03 13:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-03 13:38 -0700
How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 21:40 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 08:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 17:24 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 13:36 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 21:33 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:00 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:44 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:09 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 08:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:52 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-05 17:32 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 13:18 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 10:38 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 02:02 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:47 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:59 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:30 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 08:43 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 16:58 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 13:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 21:42 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 08:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 04:55 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:40 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-05 18:29 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:48 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 00:46 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 16:26 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-04 17:35 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-10-04 18:46 -0700
How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:41 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-03 18:17 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 21:57 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-04 07:06 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-04 07:08 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 22:57 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 09:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 17:28 +0000
Re:How atomic clocks measure time Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-04 00:26 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:23 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 09:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 09:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-04 10:23 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 13:23 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-04 08:50 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 08:57 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-04 19:54 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 21:51 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 01:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-08 13:49 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-08 05:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-09 09:22 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-09 03:36 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-09 16:42 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 12:48 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-10 09:32 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:37 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-10 19:11 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-11 14:03 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:07 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-11 21:30 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-12 15:36 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 21:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-13 11:34 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 09:44 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-05 18:40 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-04 13:53 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 01:06 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:29 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 07:44 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 16:35 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 10:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 17:13 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 13:17 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 22:06 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-05 19:38 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:50 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-06 11:02 -0500
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 09:34 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-06 18:43 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 10:08 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-06 16:18 -0500
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 00:47 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 16:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 00:31 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 22:38 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 00:54 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 23:09 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 10:37 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 09:53 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-06 16:30 -0500
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 09:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 16:35 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 10:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 20:32 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 13:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 21:31 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 22:13 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 05:22 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:21 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 06:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:40 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 06:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 07:27 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 17:21 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 21:29 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-09 07:12 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 09:03 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-09 18:22 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-09 13:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-09 22:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-10 07:39 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-10 08:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-10 09:04 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-10 09:47 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 10:49 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-10 13:29 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 21:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 07:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 15:11 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-11 09:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 09:16 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 09:59 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 13:50 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 14:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 07:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 21:47 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 18:45 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-12 12:09 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 13:20 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 21:25 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-13 03:03 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-13 09:25 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-13 10:29 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:10 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 15:49 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 17:27 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-11 17:43 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-12 09:41 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 18:50 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 13:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-12 10:13 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 08:38 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-12 18:59 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-12 13:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-10-13 11:10 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 19:51 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 13:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-11 02:33 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 21:22 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-11 07:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 12:19 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-10 08:57 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-07 14:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 07:35 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 08:04 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 17:24 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 10:43 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 21:36 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-08 11:59 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 12:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 14:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 14:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 02:45 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:41 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 22:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 08:24 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:09 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-07 09:34 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 20:17 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:28 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 09:18 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:55 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 19:46 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:26 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-08 18:02 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:29 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 11:44 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-05 17:01 -0400
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 14:26 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-06 01:03 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:15 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-06 07:42 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 08:47 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-06 09:45 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 10:35 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 17:56 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 12:50 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 13:16 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:17 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 12:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-06 19:43 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:48 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 19:56 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-05 09:02 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:10 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 09:01 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 09:56 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 17:31 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:37 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 21:48 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-09 07:32 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:52 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-08 13:54 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 09:30 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 21:57 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:24 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 13:25 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-10-06 13:47 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 21:57 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:06 -0700
Re: How atomic clocks measure time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 05:27 +0000
Re: How atomic clocks measure time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 14:51 +0200
Re: How atomic clocks measure time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 06:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aed1edf8-1233-4fbf-a4ab-1245b33aa6fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474526 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:22:08 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.10.2018 22.15, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:49:55 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 05.10.2018 06.51, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > > >> > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/tJwxlVCia3Y/Ir7OzFe9BQAJ > >> > >> https://paulba.no/div/Koobee_LT.pdf > > > > For the first time, someone with a pseudoname is able to shake the foundation of the greatest religion in the academics, and this must be very disturbing to these religious nuts. <shrug> > > > > Koobee Wublee was anticipating another defiant, mindless, and stupid challenge to what Koobee Wublee wrote, but instead it sounds like your id is coming out to finally admit the religious nature of SR. This is good news. The renaissance of demystification shall start in these newsgroups, and all of us should be very proud of. <shrug> > > > > The substitution part is where the religious nuts of SR made the mathemaGics to resolve the fatal contradiction to the twin paradox. Your id is now telling you a checkmate is in the comming, but your conscience is telling you otherwise. It is comfortable to believe and give excuse as the confusion where frame C is not necessary. <shrug> > > > > Well, in every single transform including the Galilean transform, you always need three parties --- A, B, and C --- where how C is observed by A is compared with how C is observed by B. This is the basic Galilean relativity and is also true for SR. <shrug> > > > > The case of the twin paradox, thus, is best to be described by 4 parties: twins A and B, C, and D. A transform including its reciprocal can be written down where how C is observed by A is compared to how C is observed by B, and another transform including its reciprocal can be written down where how D is observed by A is compared to how D is observed by B. Then, you allow B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D to occupy another frame of reference. <shrug> > > > > Yes, listen to your id. The symmetry of the Lorentz transform spells the fatal contradiction to the twin paradox. Wake up, Paul. You are almost there. <shrug> > > > > https://paulba.no/div/Koobee_LT.pdf > > Read the conclusion again: > | > | We do not really need the object C. > | > | When A and B are two frames of reference in relative motion > | we can state: > | A stationary clock in frame A will appear to run slow > | when observed in frame B. That’s an incomplete statement. The full explanation is: A stationary clock in frame “A" is predicted to run slow by a factor of 1/gamma_ba or fast by a factor of gamma_ba when observed in frame B. > | A stationary clock in frame B will appear to run slow > | when observed in frame A. Again that’s an incomplete statement. The full explanation is: A stationary clock in frame B is predicted to run slow by a factor of 1/gamma_ab or fast by a factor of gamma_ab when observed in frame A. > | > | This has nothing to do with the twin paradox. > | It is mutual time dilation. > > What contradiction are you talking about? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppilpu$3gm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474537 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:22:08 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Read the conclusion again: >> | >> | We do not really need the object C. >> | >> | When A and B are two frames of reference in relative motion >> | we can state: >> | A stationary clock in frame A will appear to run slow >> | when observed in frame B. >That's an incomplete statement. The full explanation is: A stationary >clock in frame "A" is predicted to run slow by a factor of 1/gamma_ba or >fast by a factor of gamma_ba when observed in frame B. No, Stupid Ken. Paul A. is using SR, he is not dumb enough to use IRT. B will both measure and predict that A's clock is seen as running slow. As B can make a definite prediction, that's just one reason why IRT is inferior to SR. >> | A stationary clock in frame B will appear to run slow >> | when observed in frame A. >Again that's an incomplete statement. The full explanation is: A >stationary clock in frame B is predicted to run slow by a factor of >1/gamma_ab or fast by a factor of gamma_ab when observed in frame A. Again, no, Stupid Ken. SR states nothing of the sort. A will both measure and predict that B's clock is seen as running slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecf8f3b7-471c-4b82-8fee-1296f51b410a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474526 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:22:08 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.10.2018 22.15, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > in every single transform including the Galilean transform, you always > > need three parties --- A, B, and C --- where how C is observed by A is > > compared with how C is observed by B. This is the basic Galilean > > relativity and is also true for SR. <shrug> > > > The case of the twin paradox, thus, is best to be described by 4 > > parties: twins A and B, C, and D. A transform including its reciprocal > > can be written down where how C is observed by A is compared to how C > > is observed by B, and another transform including its reciprocal can be > > written down where how D is observed by A is compared to how D is > > observed by B. Then, you allow B and C to occupy the same frame of > > reference and A and D to occupy another frame of reference. <shrug> > > > Yes, listen to your id. The symmetry of the Lorentz transform spells > > the fatal contradiction to the twin paradox. Wake up, Paul. You are > > almost there. <shrug> > > Read the conclusion again: > | > | We do not really need the object C. > | > | When A and B are two frames of reference in relative motion > | we can state: > | A stationary clock in frame A will appear to run slow > | when observed in frame B. > | A stationary clock in frame B will appear to run slow > | when observed in frame A. > | > | This has nothing to do with the twin paradox. > | It is mutual time dilation. > > What contradiction are you talking about? Koobee Wublee has explained we need C and D to complete the thought experiment of the twin paradox, and the mutual time dilation is where the contradiction to the twin paradox is. It is believed (as in mysticism) that the mutual time dilation breaks down when one party changes its frame of reference, and you have shown so according to your JAVA applet. Koobee Wublee has just precisely pointed out where you have misinterpreted the Lorentz transform. With A and D staying at home and B and C moving away together, there is just no ambiguity to see the mutual time dilation and thus the contradiction to the twin paradox. Do you not understand that? What is plaguing you? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 09:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <aWhvD.56468$vX1.48912@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #474557 |
Den 09.10.2018 21.48, skrev Koobee Wublee: > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:22:08 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 08.10.2018 22.15, skrev Koobee Wublee: >> >>> The case of the twin paradox, thus, is best to be described by 4 >>> parties: twins A and B, C, and D. A transform including its reciprocal >>> can be written down where how C is observed by A is compared to how C >>> is observed by B, and another transform including its reciprocal can be >>> written down where how D is observed by A is compared to how D is >>> observed by B. Then, you allow B and C to occupy the same frame of >>> reference and A and D to occupy another frame of reference. <shrug> Can you show the maths for the quadruple paradox, please? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bee2da5-e1a7-43c3-a4e9-47a1de5a7bd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474585 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:32:25 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 09.10.2018 21.48, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > The case of the twin paradox, thus, is best to be described by 4 > > parties: twins A and B, C, and D. A transform including its reciprocal > > can be written down where how C is observed by A is compared to how C > > is observed by B, and another transform including its reciprocal can be > > written down where how D is observed by A is compared to how D is > > observed by B. Then, you allow B and C to occupy the same frame of > > reference and A and D to occupy another frame of reference. <shrug> > > Can you show the maths for the quadruple paradox, please? Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) And ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal Where ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) And ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals become the following. <shrug> ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) And ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal Where ** B = C The other transform, ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) And ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal Where ** A = D Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) And ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal Where ** d<s_BB> = 0 ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> The other transform, ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) And ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal Where ** A = D In conclusion of the two transforms, ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) Where ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, we have: ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) Or ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pplitt$guf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474604 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:32:25 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen > wrote: >> Den 09.10.2018 21.48, skrev Koobee Wublee: > >> > The case of the twin paradox, thus, is best to be described by 4 >> > parties: twins A and B, C, and D. A transform including its >> > reciprocal can be written down where how C is observed by A is >> > compared to how C is observed by B, and another transform including >> > its reciprocal can be written down where how D is observed by A is >> > compared to how D is observed by B. Then, you allow B and C to >> > occupy the same frame of reference and A and D to occupy another >> > frame of reference. <shrug> >> >> Can you show the maths for the quadruple paradox, please? > > Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and > C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing > how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> > ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) And > ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal Beautiful. But I hear no music. An equation has to be expressed mathematically by nodes, loops, timing and arpeggios. On that scale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 14:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l_GvD.9038$9M1.2354@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #474604 |
Den 10.10.2018 18.37, skrev Koobee Wublee: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:32:25 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Can you show the maths for the quadruple paradox, please? > > Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> > > ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > And > > ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > Where > > ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A > ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B > ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A > ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B > ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A > ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B > ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors > > In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> > > ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > And > > ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals become the following. <shrug> > > ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > And > > ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > Where > > ** B = C > > The other transform, > > ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > And > > ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > Where > > ** A = D > > Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > And > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > Where > > ** d<s_BB> = 0 > ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> > > The other transform, > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > And > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > Where > > ** A = D > > In conclusion of the two transforms, > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) This is the apparent rate of a stationary clock in frame A as observed in frame B. > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) This is the apparent rate of a stationary clock in frame B as observed in frame A. This is mutual time dilation, nothing contradictory about that. > > Where > > ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² > > At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, we have: The stationary clocks in the inertial frame A and the stationary clock in the inertial frame B are moving away from each at the speed v. So how can they come together again? This is nonsense! You have not addressed the "twin paradox" at all. > ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > Or > > ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) ** T_AA = ∫√(1−v²/c²)dt_BA = √(1−v²/c²)T_BA This means that as observed in frame B, the stationary clock in frame A (moving in frame B) during the time T_BA would have advanced the time T_AA = (1−v²/c²)T_BA. "Moving clocks run slow." > ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) ** T_BB = ∫√(1−v²/c²)dt_AB = √(1−v²/c²)T_AB This means that as observed in frame A, the stationary clock in frame B (moving in frame A) during the time T_AB would have advanced the time T_BB = (1−v²/c²)T_AB. "Moving clocks run slow." > > The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> No. The two equations do not contradict each other. You do not understand what the equations mean. You have two inertial frames moving at the speed v relative to each other. Everything is symmetric. So in both frames, exactly the same observations must be made of stationary clocks in the other frame. _Different_ observations would contradict each other. You have not addresses the "twin paradox" at all. All you have done is to claim that mutual time dilation is self contradictory. It is not. https://paulba.no/div/Mutual_TD.pdf The same can be expressed simpler: t' = γ(t - vx/c²) and t = γ(t' + vx'/c²) ∂t'/∂t = γ and ∂t/∂t' = γ you would have to have an elementary knowledge of calculus to understand why these two equations do not contradict each other. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1812f8b6-eaaa-4bbe-becd-607b8232fc96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474645 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 5:03:32 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.10.2018 18.37, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and > > C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing > > how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A > > ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B > > ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A > > ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B > > ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A > > ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B > > ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors > > > In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. > > In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as > > follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. > > Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D > > another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals > > become the following. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** B = C > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** d<s_BB> = 0 > > ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > In conclusion of the two transforms, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) > > This is the apparent rate of a stationary clock in frame A > as observed in frame B. > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) > > This is the apparent rate of a stationary clock in frame B as observed > in frame A. This is mutual time dilation, nothing contradictory about > that. > No, dt_BB is the local clock tick rate at B (it is part of the invariant geometry), and dt_AB is how dt_BB is observed by A using A’s local clock tick rate (dt_AA) as reference. <shrug> > > Where > > > ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² > > > At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and > > they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, > > we have: > > The stationary clocks in the inertial frame A and the stationary clock > in the inertial frame B are moving away from each at the speed v. A and B do not have to be in the inertial frames of reference. They can be in non-inertial. After all, we can integrate the local clock tick rates to compute the time elapsed. <snrug> > So how can they come together again? This is nonsense! You are getting stupid! <shrug> > You have not addressed the "twin paradox" at all. You are blind. <shrug> > > ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > Or > > > ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) > ** T_AA = ∫√(1−v²/c²)dt_BA = √(1−v²/c²)T_BA > > This means that as observed in frame B, the stationary clock in frame > A (moving in frame B) during the time T_BA would have advanced the time > T_AA = (1−v²/c²)T_BA. "Moving clocks run slow." This means the (intrinsic) local clock tick rate at A (regardless inertial or non-inertial) is observed by B to run slow by √(1−v²/c²) where v does not have to be constant. <shrug> > > ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) > ** T_BB = ∫√(1−v²/c²)dt_AB = √(1−v²/c²)T_AB > > This means that as observed in frame A, the stationary clock in frame B > (moving in frame A) during the time T_AB would have advanced the time > T_BB = (1−v²/c²)T_AB. "Moving clocks run slow." The (intrinsic) local clock tick rate at B is observed by A to run slow by √(1−v²/c²). <shrug> > > The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, > > the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> > > No. The two equations do not contradict each other. You do not understand > what the equations mean. You are stupid, Paul. <shrug> > [rest of nonsense snipped Koobee Wublee has had enough of bullshit. <shrug> Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> Einstein dingleberries are dumber than shit. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <OxNvD.20933$6N5.20010@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #474676 |
Den 11.10.2018 19.07, skrev Koobee Wublee: > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 5:03:32 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 10.10.2018 18.37, skrev Koobee Wublee: >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:32:25 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> Can you show the maths for the quadruple paradox, please? >>> >>> Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> >>> >>> ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> >>> And >>> >>> ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> >>> Where >>> >>> ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A >>> ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B >>> ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A >>> ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B >>> ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A >>> ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B >>> ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors >>> >>> In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> >>> >>> ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> >>> And >>> >>> ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> >>> This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals become the following. <shrug> >>> >>> ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> >>> And >>> >>> ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> >>> Where >>> >>> ** B = C >>> >>> The other transform, >>> >>> ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> >>> And >>> >>> ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> >>> Where >>> >>> ** A = D >>> >>> Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: >>> >>> ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> >>> And >>> >>> ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> >>> Where >>> >>> ** d<s_BB> = 0 >>> ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> >>> >>> The other transform, >>> >>> ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> >>> And >>> >>> ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> >>> Where >>> >>> ** A = D >>> >>> In conclusion of the two transforms, >>> >>> ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) >> >> This is the apparent rate of a stationary clock in frame A >> as observed in frame B. >> >>> ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) >> >> This is the apparent rate of a stationary clock in frame B as observed >> in frame A. This is mutual time dilation, nothing contradictory about >> that. >> > > No, dt_BB is the local clock tick rate at B (it is part of the invariant geometry), and dt_AB is how dt_BB is observed by A using A’s local clock tick rate (dt_AA) as reference. <shrug> > >>> Where >> >>> ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² >> >>> At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and >>> they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, >>> we have: >> >> The stationary clocks in the inertial frame A and the stationary clock >> in the inertial frame B are moving away from each at the speed v. > > A and B do not have to be in the inertial frames of reference. They can be in non-inertial. After all, we can integrate the local clock tick rates to compute the time elapsed. <snrug> Don't be ridiculous! > >> So how can they come together again? This is nonsense! > > You are getting stupid! <shrug> > >> You have not addressed the "twin paradox" at all. > > You are blind. <shrug> > >>> ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>> ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >> >>> Or >> >>> ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >> >> ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) >> ** T_AA = ∫√(1−v²/c²)dt_BA = √(1−v²/c²)T_BA >> >> This means that as observed in frame B, the stationary clock in frame >> A (moving in frame B) during the time T_BA would have advanced the time >> T_AA = (1−v²/c²)T_BA. "Moving clocks run slow." > > This means the (intrinsic) local clock tick rate at A (regardless inertial or non-inertial) is observed by B to run slow by √(1−v²/c²) where v does not have to be constant. <shrug> > >>> ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >> >> ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) >> ** T_BB = ∫√(1−v²/c²)dt_AB = √(1−v²/c²)T_AB >> >> This means that as observed in frame A, the stationary clock in frame B >> (moving in frame A) during the time T_AB would have advanced the time >> T_BB = (1−v²/c²)T_AB. "Moving clocks run slow." > > The (intrinsic) local clock tick rate at B is observed by A to run slow by √(1−v²/c²). <shrug> > >>> The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, >>> the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> >> >> No. The two equations do not contradict each other. You do not understand >> what the equations mean. > > You are stupid, Paul. <shrug> > >> You have two inertial frames moving at the speed v >> relative to each other. Everything is symmetric. >> So in both frames, exactly the same observations must >> be made of stationary clocks in the other frame. >> >> _Different_ observations would contradict each other. >> >> You have not addresses the "twin paradox" at all. >> All you have done is to claim that mutual time dilation >> is self contradictory. It is not. >> >> https://paulba.no/div/Mutual_TD.pdf >> >> The same can be expressed simpler: >> >> t' = γ(t - vx/c²) and t = γ(t' + vx'/c²) >> >> ∂t'/∂t = γ and ∂t/∂t' = γ >> >> you would have to have an elementary knowledge of calculus >> to understand why these two equations do not contradict each other. > > Koobee Wublee has had enough of bullshit. <shrug> > > Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> > > Einstein dingleberries are dumber than shit. <shrug> > I note with interest that Koobee Wublee is ignorant of the fact that the frames of reference in the Lorentz transform: t' = γ(t - vx/c²) and t = γ(t' + vx'/c²) are inertial frames of reference. Ignorance of own ignorance . . . :-D I rest my case. https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a37bf65-bdba-4cd4-8743-efdda2a746f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474685 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 11.10.2018 19.07, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and > > C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing > > how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A > > ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B > > ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A > > ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B > > ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A > > ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B > > ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors > > > In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. > > In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as > > follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. > > Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D > > another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals > > become the following. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** B = C > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** d<s_BB> = 0 > > ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > In conclusion of the two transforms, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) > > > Where > > > ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² > > > At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and > > they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, > > we have: > > > ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > Or > > > ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, > > the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> > Don't be ridiculous! <shrug> > > Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always > > occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they > > twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically > > places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation > > --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with > > these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is > > where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> > > I note with interest that Koobee Wublee is ignorant of the fact that > the frames of reference in the Lorentz transform: > t' = γ(t - vx/c²) and t = γ(t' + vx'/c²) > are inertial frames of reference. Koobee Wublee never used the transforms above. Koobee Wubee used the transforms below which satisfy both the inertial and the non-inertial frames of reference. <shrug> ** dt' = γ(dt – v dx / c²) ** dt = γ(dt' + v dx' / c²) > Ignorance of own ignorance . . . :-D Paul is ignorant. <shrug> > I rest my case. You have the right to remain silent. Any feces you defecate can be used against you. <shrug> > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf That’s ridiculous. Your fvck up has been precisely identified in this post quoted above by Koobee Wublee. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fab08ee-8639-43d7-9485-c96a63cf3bb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474688 |
Koobee Wublee escrito You have the right to remain silent. Any feces you defecate can be used against you. <shrug> 😂 LoL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 15:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Qr1wD.15505$NF7.14873@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #474688 |
Den 11.10.2018 22.08, skrev Koobee Wublee: > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Den 11.10.2018 19.07, skrev Koobee Wublee: >>> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 5:03:32 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 10.10.2018 18.37, skrev Koobee Wublee: >>>>> >>>>> In conclusion of the two transforms, >>>>> >>>>> ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) >>>>> ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) >>>>> ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² >>>>> At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and >>>>> they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, >>>>> we have: >>>> >>>> The stationary clocks in the inertial frame A and the stationary clock >>>> in the inertial frame B are moving away from each at the speed v. >>>> So how can they come together again? This is nonsense! >>>> You have not addressed the "twin paradox" at all. >>> >>> You are blind. <shrug> >>> >>>>> ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>>>> ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>>>> Or >>>>> ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>>>> ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>>>> The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, >>>>> the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> >>>> >>>> No. The two equations do not contradict each other. You do not understand >>>> what the equations mean. >>>> You have two inertial frames moving at the speed v >>>> relative to each other. Everything is symmetric. >>>> So in both frames, exactly the same observations must >>>> be made of stationary clocks in the other frame. >>>> >>>> _Different_ observations would contradict each other. >>>> >>>> You have not addresses the "twin paradox" at all. >>>> All you have done is to claim that mutual time dilation >>>> is self contradictory. It is not. >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/div/Mutual_TD.pdf >>>> >>>> The same can be expressed simpler: >>>> >>>> t' = γ(t - vx/c²) and t = γ(t' + vx'/c²) >>>> >>>> ∂t'/∂t = γ and ∂t/∂t' = γ >>>> >>>> you would have to have an elementary knowledge of calculus >>>> to understand why these two equations do not contradict each other. >>> >>> Koobee Wublee has had enough of bullshit. <shrug> >>> >>> Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> >>> >>> Einstein dingleberries are dumber than shit. <shrug> >>> >> >> I note with interest that Koobee Wublee is ignorant of the fact >> that the frames of reference in the Lorentz transform: >> t' = γ(t - vx/c²) and t = γ(t' + vx'/c²) >> are inertial frames of reference. >> > > Koobee Wublee never used the transforms above. Koobee Wubee used the transforms below which satisfy both the inertial and the non-inertial frames of reference. <shrug> > > ** dt' = γ(dt – v dx / c²) > ** dt = γ(dt' + v dx' / c²) > >> Ignorance of own ignorance . . . :-D > > Paul is ignorant. <shrug> > >> I rest my case. > > You have the right to remain silent. Any feces you defecate can be used against you. <shrug> > I will say this for you, Koobee: Your ignorance of elementary maths never cease to amaze. It is mildly amusing, though. So thanks for the entertainment. :-D >> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > That’s ridiculous. Your fvck up has been precisely identified in this post quoted above by Koobee Wublee. <shrug> > Quite. As will be obvious to all who read Koobee Wublee's unique mathematics. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 21:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8450e9fe-b44e-40d8-81fc-82628effb1ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474736 |
On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 6:36:51 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 11.10.2018 22.08, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and > > C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing > > how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A > > ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B > > ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A > > ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B > > ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A > > ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B > > ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors > > > In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. > > In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as > > follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. > > Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D > > another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals > > become the following. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** B = C > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** d<s_BB> = 0 > > ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > In conclusion of the two transforms, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) > > > Where > > > ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² > > > At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and > > they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, > > we have: > > > ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > Or > > > ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, > > the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> > > > Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always > > occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they > > twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically > > places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation > > --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with > > these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is > > where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> > Your ignorance of elementary maths never cease to amaze. Where is the mistake? <shrug> > As will be obvious to all who read Koobee Wublee's unique mathematics. Only a clown claims a mistake but is unable to identify that mistake. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 11:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <__iwD.29604$ZZ3.8953@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #474804 |
Den 13.10.2018 06.45, skrev Koobee Wublee: >> Den 11.10.2018 22.08, skrev Koobee Wublee: >>> Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and >>> C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing >>> how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> >>> ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> And >>> ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> Where >>> ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A >>> ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B >>> ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A >>> ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B >>> ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A >>> ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B >>> ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors >>> In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. >>> In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as >>> follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> >>> ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> And >>> ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. >>> Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D >>> another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals >>> become the following. <shrug> >>> ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> And >>> ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> Where >>> ** B = C >>> The other transform, >>> ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> And >>> ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> Where >>> ** A = D >>> Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: >>> ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> And >>> ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >>> Where >>> ** d<s_BB> = 0 >>> ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> >>> The other transform, >>> ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) >>> And >>> ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal >> >>> Where >> >>> ** A = D >> >>> In conclusion of the two transforms, >> >>> ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) >> >>> ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) >> >>> Where >>> ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² >>> At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and >>> they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, >>> we have: >>> ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>> ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>> Or >>> ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>> ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) >>> The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, >>> the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> >>> Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always >>> occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they >>> twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically >>> places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation >>> --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with >>> these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is >>> where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> Koobee Wublee have snipped everything I have written in this thread, but this single statement: > On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 6:36:51 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Your ignorance of elementary maths never cease to amaze. > > Where is the mistake? <shrug> I have pointed out several mistakes in my previous postings in this thread. That's why you snipped them. >> Den 11.10.2018 22.08, skrev Koobee Wublee: >>> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf >>> >>> That’s ridiculous. Your fvck up has been precisely identified in this post quoted above by Koobee Wublee. <shrug> >>> >> >> Quite. >> As will be obvious to all who read Koobee Wublee's unique mathematics. > > Only a clown claims a mistake but is unable to identify that mistake. <shrug> > All who read Koobee Wublee's unique mathematics will be able to identify the clown. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6d54c5a-617c-4ac8-a6bd-960402a0219a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474811 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 2:34:53 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 13.10.2018 06.45, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > Any transform including the Galilean involves three parties: A, B, and > > C, and this transform and its reciprocal can only be written describing > > how C is observed by A comparing to how C is observed by B. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AC = (dt_BC – <v_BA> * d<s_BC> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BC = (dt_AC – <v_AB> * d<s_AC> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** dt_AC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by A > > ** dt_BC = local clock tick rate at C as observed by B > > ** <v_AB> = velocity of B as observed by A > > ** <v_BA> = velocity of A as observed by B > > ** <s_AC> = position vector of C as observed by A > > ** <s_BC> = position vector of C as observed by B > > ** <...> * <...> = dot/inner product of two vectors > > > In the case of the twin paradox, we need to introduce another party D. > > In this case, another and independent transform can be written down as > > follows having A and B as observers. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AD = (dt_BD – <v_BA> * d<s_BD> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BD = (dt_AD – <v_AB> * d<s_AD> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > This is not the quadruple paradox. It is still the twin paradox. > > Demanding B and C to occupy the same frame of reference and A and D > > another frame, the above two transforms including their reciprocals > > become the following. <shrug> > > > ** dt_AB = (dt_BB – <v_BA> * d<s_BB> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = (dt_AB – <v_AB> * d<s_AB> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** B = C > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = (dt_BA – <v_BA> * d<s_BA> / c²) / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = (dt_AA – <v_AB> * d<s_AA> / c²) / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > Simplifying these two transforms above, we have: > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** d<s_BB> = 0 > > ** d<s_AB>/dt_AB = <v_AB> > > > The other transform, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v_BA²/c²) > > > And > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / √(1−v_AB²/c²), reciprocal > > > Where > > > ** A = D > > > In conclusion of the two transforms, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA √(1−v²/c²) > > > ** dt_BB = dt_AB √(1−v²/c²) > > > Where > > > ** v² = v_BA² = v_AB² > > > At time t = 0, all A, B, C, and D meet at rest to each other, and > > they come back together at t = T_AA or T_BB for each twin. Thus, > > we have: > > > ** ∫[0,T_AA](dt) = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** ∫[0,T_BB](dt) = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > Or > > > ** T_AA = ∫[0,T_BB](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > ** T_BB = ∫[0,T_AA](dt √(1−v²/c²)) > > > The two equations above contradict each other with non-zero v. Thus, > > the twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> > > > Koobee Wublee has shown the mutual observed time dilation always > > occur in SR. This mutual time dilation is no consequence if they > > twins never meet or just meet once. The twin paradox specifically > > places two boundary conditions to the observed mutual time dilation > > --- initial and final reunification. You can use integrals with > > these boundary conditions to compute the elapsed time, and this is > > where the fatal contradiction is. <shrug> > I have pointed out several mistakes in my previous postings in this thread. You may have done so in your dreams, but in reality, there is no such a deed from you. Checking back on your previous posts can easily decides so. <shrug> > That's why you snipped them. Koobee Wublee only takes out garbage, trim fat, and flush shit down the sewage. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp8b7d$sje$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474098 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 04.10.2018 17.57, skrev Koobee Wublee: >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/tJwxlVCia3Y/ Ir7OzFe9BQAJ > > Ignorance of own ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance. You can't possibly arrive to this conclusion, which is a matter of fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f058cff4-98d8-432e-a5d5-d0b1ac799e12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474006 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 3:38:47 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > Atomic clocks measure the oscillation rate of electrons. For a cesium-133 atomic clock, the oscillation rate of the outermost electron on the atom is 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. As long as the clock remains in one place, the only corrections needed are due to natural fluctuations explained as follows: > > "However, no two "real" cesium beam > clocks keep precisely the same time, > even when located together in the laboratory, > but generally show systematic > rate (or frequency) differences which in > extreme cases may amount to time differences > as large as 1 microsec per day." > Source: Hafele and Keating's second paper. > > That oscillation rate of 9,192,631,770 Hertz is also the official COUNT for one second. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html > > If the clock is raised or lowered, the oscillation rate of the electrons will > speed up or slow down, and the clock is automatically adjusted to continue to > count 9,192,631,770 cycles as being one second. Thus, a second gets longer or > shorter but is always a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. > > How atomic clocks work is described at these links: > https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html > https://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm > http://web.mit.edu/scicom/www/atomicclock.html > > So, it can be said that atomic clocks measure time by measuring the oscillation rates of atoms. That oscillation rate speeds up when the clock is raised, and it slows down when the clock is lowered (or moved at high speed), but regardless of how long it takes to COUNT 9,192,631,770 oscillations, one second is still 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium atom's outermost electron. > > Ed I think understanding how an atomic clock works could resolve a lot of debates about time dilation. What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is raised to a higher altitude? What CAUSES an atomic clock to slow down and have longer seconds when it is moved at high speeds? Here's the abstract from Hafele and Keating's second paper: "Four cesium beam clocks flown around the world on commercial jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward, recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 ± 10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273 + 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks." http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Experiment.pdf When flying together with the spin of the earth, the atomic clocks ran SLOWER than the Naval Observatory clock. When flying against the spin of the earth, the atomic clocks ran FASTER than the Naval Observatory clock. What happened inside the clock to cause those differences? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 01:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp6ddq$ghb$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474109 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: >I think understanding how an atomic clock works could resolve a lot of debates >about time dilation. Uh-oh, here come some bad science opinions from Ed. >What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is >raised to a higher altitude? It doesn't. Anyone with the atomic clock will tell you it's keeping perfect time. >What CAUSES an atomic clock to slow down and have longer seconds when it is >moved at high speeds? It doesn't. Anyone with the atomic clock will tell you it's keeping perfect time. >Here's the abstract from Hafele and Keating's second paper: ... >When flying together with the spin of the earth, the atomic clocks ran >SLOWER than the Naval Observatory clock. Rather, it experienced less total time. > When flying against the spin of the earth, the atomic clocks ran >FASTER than the Naval Observatory clock. Rather, it experienced more total time. >What happened inside the clock to cause those differences? Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8a7e14b-6e44-4c52-815b-776613af6d8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474136 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:06:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> writes: > > >I think understanding how an atomic clock works could resolve a lot of debates > >about time dilation. > > Uh-oh, here come some bad science opinions from Ed. > > >What CAUSES the atomic clock to speed up and have shorter seconds when it is > >raised to a higher altitude? > > It doesn't. Anyone with the atomic clock will tell you it's keeping > perfect time. Yes, "it's keeping perfect time" FOR ITS ALTITUDE. But anyone with an atomic clock will tell you the clock ticks FASTER at higher altitudes. ALL time dilation experiments involving atomic clocks DEMONSTRATE THAT. A good example is the NIST experiment: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Some quotes: "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket." "Similarly, the NIST researchers observed another aspect of relativity — that time passes more slowly when you move faster—at speeds comparable to a car travelling about 20 miles per hour, a more comprehensible scale than previous measurements made using jet aircraft." "In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter (about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as predicted." ALL time dilation experiments involving atomic clocks show the same thing. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fa41ea3-f596-4688-8b54-ffa455db020e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474179 |
Is no one here capable of discussing how atomic clocks change the length of a second when raised or lowered? That is an undeniable FACT: "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations — a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket. "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase." Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Many many other experiments show the same thing. Yet people here DENY it and FALSELY CLAIM there are experiments which show that time and atomic clocks DO NOT speed up at higher altitudes. Atomic clocks CHANGE THE LENGTH OF A SECOND when raised or lowered. They always measure a second to be a COUNT of 9,192,631,770 "ticks" of the clock, but when the clock is raised, it takes less time to COUNT that number of ticks. The purpose of this thread is to discuss HOW a cesium atomic clock determines that a second has changed its length. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web